The State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint where one of the respondents is residing in Delhi and the compensation claimed exceeds Rs. 1 lac.

Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President— Briefly the facts are that respondent No. 2 is carrying on the business as builder and respondent No. 1 is the head and respondent Nos. 3 & 4 are partners of respondent No. 2.The complainant is the owner of plot No. A-12, Sector 40, Noida. He asked the respondents in Decembers'90 to build a house on the said plot. It is alleged that it was agreed between them that the respondent would charge him @ Rs 245/- per sq. ft. for the construction. The said rate included the price of the material as well labour. In addition to that the complainant would pay Rs. 28/- per sq. ft. for constructing the boundary wall. The construction of the house was to be completed by 28th February '91.

2. After the work was started by the respondents it was found by the complainant that the construction was going on at a very slow pace, and this fact was brought to their notice. Respondent No. 4 in March' 91 sought extension of time and promised that the building would be completed by 12th April' 91. In case he failed to complete the house by that date, he would pay compensation Rs. 1,000/- per day to the complainant w.e.f. 12thApril '91 till the date of the completion of the house. Inspite of that the house was not completed on the agreed date.

3. It is further pleaded that as the respondents failed to complete the house, the complainant had to get that completed himself by spending a huge amount of Rs. 40,000/- from his own pocket. He requested the respondents to pay the amount which he had spent for completion of the house and further to pay penalty @ Rs. 1,000/-per day w.e.f. 12.4.91 to 10.6.91 till the date of final completion and to obtain the completion certificate, but, they failed to do so. He has paid an amount of Rs. 1,34,177/- to the respondents and spent an amount of Rs 40,876/- for completion of the house. He also got the completion ceritficate on his own. In addition he had to pay Rs. 868/- as compounding fee which he is entitled to recover from the respondents. Consequently he has prayed that the respondents be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 60,000/- as damages and Rs. 40,876/- the amount spent by him for completion of the building, Rs. 868/- compounding fee paid to Noida and Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages for mental agony and torture.

4. The complaint was contested on behalf of respondent Nos. 1,3 & 4. Respondent No. 3 has raised a preliminary objection that the Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint as no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Moreover it is alleged, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 were residing at Noida and respondent No. 3 was working at Noida. He further pleaded that the complainant does not fall within the definition of the term 'consumer' as defined in the Act. On merits it is stated that there is no partnership firm existing in the name of respondent No. 2 and that he had no connection with respondent No. 1. He further submitted that in view of allegations of the complainant that he was an agent of respondent No. 1, no complaint against him was maintainable. No undertaking as alleged, was given by him in writing to the complainant. It is denied by him that the complainant spent any amount from the his pocket or was entitled to any amount as claimed by the complainant. He pleaded that the complainant never raised any objection regarding the material used in the building.

5. It is further pleaded by him that respondent No. 4 was an architect and he had engaged him to supervise the work and agreed to pay Rs. 100/- per day as supervision charges. However, in order to avoid tax, respondent No. 4 used to obtain his signatures on various papers including the bank account. The complainant had agreed at a later stage to pay1@ Rs.300/- per sq. mt. for the covered area as he asked them to provide mosaic flooring. In addition he had agreed to pay Rs. 25,000/- extra for wood work and iron grills. Thus the complainant was