(1.) -IN this revision by the opposite party builder, challenge is to the order dated 29. 4. 1999 of a District Forum as modified by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, Chennai vide order dated 4. 12. 2006. The District Forum had allowed the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant with direction to the petitioner to hand over possession of a flat of an area of 650 sq. ft. with additional area of 26 sq. ft. ; pay interest @ 12% on Rs. 2,96,000 from 15. 10. 1995; pay rent @ Rs. 800 from 15. 11. 1995 till delivery of the flat and pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony to the respondent. In appeal by the petitioner, the State Commission confirmed the order of District Forum except for the direction to pay rent @ Rs. 800 per month from 15. 11. 1995.
(2.) BEFORE adverting to the submission advanced by Mr. C. S. Vasan for petitioner, few facts need be noticed. Respondent, a resident of Trichy who was desirous to purchase a flat for herself in Chennai as she was alone in Trichy, contacted the petitioner-builder who agreed to sell undivided interest in land in Survey Nos. 16/1 and 16/2 in Door No. 3, 27th Street, Nanganallur, Chennai for Rs. 96,000 and construct a flat on the land for Rs. 1,80,000 to the respondent. Two separate agreements for the purpose were executed between the parties on 29. 3. 1993. Between 29. 3. 1993 and 15. 10. 1995 the respondent is stated to have paid a total sum of Rs. 2,96,000 to the petitioner which included cost of the land and flat. Respondent alleged that she had paid extra amount of Rs. 20,000 to the petitioner. On flat not being handed over the respondent filed complaint which was contested by the petitioner.
(3.) MAIN thrust of argument advanced on behalf of petitioner was that the respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000 from the petitioner which was repaid by her on 14. 8. 1995 and after allowing deduction for this amount, the amount paid towards the cost of land and flat was Rs. 2,46,000 and not Rs. 2,96,000. It was claimed that part of the cost of flat still remains to be paid by the respondent. Further, cause of action accrued to the respondent on 29. 3. 1993, the date on which two agreements were executed and the complaint filed on 15. 10. 1998 was barred by limitation. As may be seen from the written version (copy at pages 62 to 69) the plea of respondent having borrowed Rs. 50,000 from the petitioner and that amount having been repaid vide receipt No. 192 dated 14. 8. 1995 was not taken therein nor it seems to have been raised before the District Forum. In para No. 8 of the order, the State Commission before whom the said stand was taken had found it to be false and has recorded cogent reasoning, therefore, we are in total agreement with the view taken by the State Commission that the plea taken by the petitioner to the said effect is totally false.