Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member: Cost of Rs.500/-paid before us by the appellant to the respondent in respect of order passed in delay condonation application by this Commission on 04/08/2010. Appellant present in person. Respondent by Adv.Mr.P.M.Tilekar for respondent. This is an appeal filed by the org.opp.party against the judgment and award passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.42/2005 decided on 18/08/2009. By the said judgement while allowing the complaint partly, the Forum below directed to pay a sum of Rs.1Lakh to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from 20/02/2004 till actual realization of the amount. Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal has been filed by org.opp.party. Facts the extent material may be stated as under: The respondents herein are the owner of the land bearing Sr.No.25, Hissa No.1A/21, admeasuring about 1000 sq.ft. They wanted to erect the structure for the purpose of their own residence. They approached the opponent, who is a building contractor. The negotiation took place between the parties and accordingly, they entered into an agreement. Said agreement was executed on 17/09/2003 and complainant pleaded that opp.party had obtained an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- under the said agreement. The opponent had erected 8 columns and had raised the construction of walls up to the waist height. Thereafter, he started demanding balance payment. On enquiry, the opponent refused to carry out the construction. The complainant pleaded that refusal to perform part of the agreement amounts to deficiency in service. They therefore, prayed that amount of Rs.1,80,000/- be refunded to them by way of compensation together with interest @18% p.a. with effect from 17/09/2003. For the said purpose the complainants had filed consumer complaint. Opp.party filed written statement and contested the matter. According to them, the premises in question are situated within the local limits of Pune Municipal Corporation. The said land is required to be coverted to Non Agriculture purpose. The permission of the local authority to carryout the construction was necessary. They also pleaded that the agreement dated 17/09/2003 was without any consideration. They further pleaded that the complainant did not abide by the terms and the conditions of the agreement. They had unilaterally increased the area of the constructed portion by 50 sq.ft. They also pleaded that complainants were not paying him the remaining dues and that prices of construction material had increased and therefore, he was not in position to complete the work unless complainant is prepared to pay him enhanced consideration. He therefore, prayed that complaint should be dismissed as filed without any basis. Parties have adduced evidence on record. Considering those affidavits, Forum below held that opp.party left incomplete work. Forum below held that construction made by the opp.party was not more than worth of Rs.50,000/- and opp.party had breached all the terms and conditions of the agreement made by them, which was duly established on the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record. The complainant was therefore deprived of enjoying of the residential house for more than five years and therefore, the Forum below was pleased to allow the complaint partly and directed the opp.party to pay Rs.One Lakh to the complainant with interest from 20/02/2004 and as such, org.opp.party has filed this appeal. We heard submissions of the appellant, who is present in person and Adv. Mr.P.M.Tilekar for the complainants/respondents. Adv.Rathod for the respondent rightly pointed that written version filed by the opp.party was not disclosing true facts in respect of consideration taken under agreement. According to him, his client had paid Rs.1,20,000/- whereas in written statement in para 8 opp.party simply pleaded that he had received Rs.50,000/- from the complainant which was an absolutely false statement. He pleaded that in para 12 that if complainants give guarantee for remaining work and if they would pay him consideration at enhanced rate then only he will proceed to complete the construction work as per contract which means that appellant herein stopped the work of construction because he wanted more monies from the complainant. He wanted complainant to spend more monies than agreed consideration as written in the contract. Therefore, Forum below in our view rightly turned the contention raised by the opp.party and rightly allowed the complaint partly. As such, we pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. Appeals stands dismissed. 2. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 3. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties. | 
