JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President :—In this complaint the relief is sought by the complainant against the Builder regarding the deficiency in the service. Shortly stated, the facts are that the complainant is a Government employee. The opposite party is a builder. The complainant booked the duplex flat No. 2 in 'C' Wing of Plot No. 65 at Pune admeasuring 1150 sq.ft. for a consideration of Rs. 2,90,000/-. The agreement about the transaction has been executed on 18-5-1989. According to complainant, he paid complete purchase price of Rs. 2,90,000/- to the opposite party. The complainant alleged that Rs. 2,50,000/- were paid vide demand draft on Syndicate Bank, Pune and Rs. 45,000/- in cash in the year 1989. The opposite party assured that the possession would be delivered latest by 30-10-1989 to the complainant. It is the case of complainant that he planned his settling at Pune after his retirement and, therefore, he invested the money in the flat for his bona fide residence. The complainant further alleged that in July, 1989, the opposite party stopped the construction work. Thereafter, according to complainant he made several trips to Pune from Delhi to meet the opposite party for getting the possession of the flat but on every occasion, the opposite party falsely assured him and did not made any further improvement or any progress in the construction of the flat. The complainant last visited Pune on 30-4-1991, when the opposite party bluntly informed that the construction of the flat cannot be completed and offered to give back 50% amount in full and final settlement of his payment. In the complaint, therefore, the complainant alleged that the opposite party be directed to complete the construction and deliver the possession of the flat or in the alternative he claimed back the amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. with expenses of Rs. 15,000/-. 2. The opposite party filed his written version dated 30-9-1991 in which the opposite party admitted the receipt of Rs. 2,90,000/- from the complainant. According to the opposite party, the aforesaid amount was not paid for the purchase of flat but invested the money with him for earning interest. The opposite party also raised some technical objections with which we are not much concerned. 3. We heard the arguments of complainant in person and opposite party through Shri V.H. Nikte, Advocate. According to the opposite party, the aforesaid amount was not paid for the purchase of flat but invested the money with him for earning interest. The opposite party also raised some technical objections with which we are not much concerned. 3. We heard the arguments of complainant in person and opposite party through Shri V.H. Nikte, Advocate. We also perused the relevant documents on record. 4. Considering the rival claims the only point that survives for consideration is whether there has been negligence in the service of the opposite party and, therefore, the complainant is entitled for the refund of purchase price? 5. In view of the admission of the opposite party that he received Rs. 2,90,000/- from complainant, the only disputed point requires to be decided is as to whether the complainant paid the aforesaid amount by way of investment to the opposite party or that he paid the said amount as a consideration for hiring the services of opposite party for construction of the flat? 6. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the complainant has placed on record a copy of the agreement dated 18-5-1989. The agreement clearly shows that the opposite party agreed to render the service of the construction of the flat to the complainant for consideration. It is not necessary for us to consider the details of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Suffice it to say that there was an agreement executed by the opposite party in which he agreed to render the necessary service to the complainant to construct the flat. It is also apparent that despite the stipulation in para 8 of the agreement, the opposite party did not construct the flat and did not place the complainant in possession thereof. Thus, the deficiency in the service of the opposite party is very evident. The allegations made in the complaint thus stand proved. Moreover, the complainant has filed his affidavit dated 16-1-1992 duly sworn in, in which he verified the allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also placed on record the receipts of the payment of the amount. In view of the documentary evidence the defence of the opposite party that the complainant invested the money for earning interest cannot be accepted. 7. The complainant also placed on record the receipts of the payment of the amount. In view of the documentary evidence the defence of the opposite party that the complainant invested the money for earning interest cannot be accepted. 7. In view of our finding that there was deficiency in the service of the opposite party to perform his part of the agreement in terms of the agreement, the complainant has been put to loss. The negligence on the part of the opposite party is very apparent in as much as after collecting the full amount of consideration the opposite party neglected the construction of the flat. Thus, in our view, as there has been a negligence on the part of the opposite party as a result of which the complainant is put to loss, the complainant deserves compensation. We find that the complainant has paid the amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- which is lying with the opposite party since 16-5-1989. Therefore, the loss of capital caused to the complainant requires to be compensated. In our view, therefore, it would be appropriate if we award interest to the complainant on the amount which he paid to the opposite party on 16-5-1989. It is not, therefore, necessary to award the separate compensation of Rs. 15,000 as claimed by the complainant. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER 8. The opposite party shall refund to the complainant Rs. 2,90,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 16-5-1989 till realisation and also pay to the complainant Rs. 1,000 as costs. Order accordingly. *****