Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President—The two complainants are husband and wife.

2. The case of the complainants is that the opposite party M/s. Rudhra Constructions and Estates agreed to construct a flat for the complainants for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- inclusive of land cost. As per the agreement dated 26.5.91 the complainant paid the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 26.5.91 and the opposite party undertook to construct and deliver the flat within one year time from 26.5.91 or atleast within a grace time of further one month, and if there would be any delay in delivering possession the opposite parry would be liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a. for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the delaying period. As per the agreement the built up area would be 750 sq. ft., but the agreement further provides that due to any unavoidable circumstances if the constructed area is less than the said agreed area the opposite party would have to repay the complainants the proportionate cost @ Rs. 350/- per sq. ft. and if the constructed area is more than the agreed area of 750 sq. ft. the complainants have to pay more for the extra area on the same rate of Rs. 350/- per sq. ft. While so the complainants received a letter from the opposite party on 26.9.94 requesting the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 17,000/- for depositing towards the charges of electricity supply, drainage and metro water. The complainants met the opposite party and pleaded that the sum of Rs. 17,000/- claimed for deposit is excessive and then paid Rs. 10,000/-. Though the opposite party received the entire construction amount they have not handed over possession of the flat as agreed. That constitutes negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Since the opposite party did not give possession of the flat inspite of several requests by the complainant they suffered mental agony. On these grounds the complainants have prayed for,

(1) Direction to the opposite party to hand over the possession of the flat,

(2) A compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony,

(3) Rs. 64,000/- being interest from 26.6.92 till the date of complaint and also the subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. till the date of handing over of possession of the flat.

3. The counter case of the opposite party is that the complainants paid the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to opposite party as an investment and the interest payable was 24% p.a. and they did not wanted the flat for their occupation and the agreement dated 26.5.91 was executed only to safeguard the interest of the complainants. The complainants never complained about the delay in handing over possession of the flat, but has filed this complaint claiming exhorbitant amounts. The complainant’s claim is time barred. The opposite party demanded Rs. 17,000/- for payment to electricity supply, drainage and meter water but the complainants did not pay that amount but after persuasion and negotiation they paid the sum of Rs. 10,000/- only. There was no deficiency in service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The point for consideration are :

1. Whether the complainants paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the opposite party as cost of construction of the flat alleged by them or tine amount was paid only as an investment as contended by the opposite party ?

2. Whether the claim is barred by limitation as contended by the opposite party ?

3. If the case of the complainants is true and not time barred to what relief they will be entitled ?

5. Point No. 1 : A reading of the written version itself would show beyond any manner of doubt that the complainants paid the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as cost of construction as pleaded by them. The last sentence in para 3 of the written version reads thus:

“The complainant had promised that he would not be occupying the flat at any time and he would sell the flat to prospective buyers after completion of construction at a profit.” (Obviously it is a mistake tnat instead of the words “Complainants’ and “th