D.R. Vithal Rao, President - In this complaint under section 17 read with section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:

"In view of the foregoing, the complainant humbly prays that this Hon'ble Commission be pleased to allow the claim made by the complainant in the interest of justice and equity with a direction to the respondents to pay:

(a) to refund the sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- collected excessively over and above the estimated cost;

(b) to pay interest @ 18% from the date of final payment till the date of complaint and hereafter at 24% p.a.;

(c) to pay compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant by the respondents and pay damages for the loss sustained by the complainant for the inordinate delay in constructing the house.

(d) to refund the cost of painting and polishing, a sum of Rs. 15.000/- incurred by the complainant;

(e) to rectify the leakage or to pay damages for such leakages;

(f) any other order/direction as deemed fit in the instant case; and

(g) costs of the proceedings."

2. It is the case of the complainant that she entered into an oral agreement with the opposite party in the month of October-November, 1988, that the opposite party would construct a dwelling house for the complainant at the cost of Rs. 1.60.000/-. The complainant made advance payment of a sum of Rs. 22,000/- in October-November. 1988. The opposite party started the construction in the month of January. 1989 and by June. 1989 received a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- from the complainant. The complainant by 14-51990 made payment of a sum of Rs. 2.62.000/- to the opposite party. The opposite party did not complete the construction even on receipt of this huge sum of Rs. 2.62.000/- and demanded further payment. It. is the further case of the complainant that the opposite party gave a final bill for a further sum of Rs. 59.000/- but during discussion the opposite party agreed to refund a sum of Rs. 37.863/- to the complainant. It is the grievance of the complainant that the opposite party did not refund even that agreed sum of Rs. 37.863/- to the complainant. The complainant nextly averred that she issued a legal notice demanding payment of the said sum to the opposite party but the opposite party failed to make payment of the said amount to the complainant. So the complainant sought the reliefs, as narrated above.

3. The opposite party filed the version and denied that there was any oral agreement between the complainant and the opposite party as averred by the complainant. The opposite party averred that it rendered its services as an architect and engineer and it was only Messrs. Aithal Constructions who had constructed the building. The opposite party further averred that it had not received any excess amount nor it had agreed to refund a sum of Rs. 37,863/- to the complainant. The opposite party on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed.

4. During enquiry the husband of the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and got Exs. C.l to C.12 marked. The opposite party filed the affidavit in evidence.

5. We heard the learned Counsel for the complainant, perused the pleadings and the material on record.

6. It is not disputed that the house was constructed and the complainant occupied the same. The grievance of the complainant is that the house was agreed to be constructed for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- but the opposite party had taken a sum of Rs. 2,62,000/- from the complainant and so the complainant sought refund of the excess amount so collected by the opposite party with interest thereon.

7. Having regard to these facts, we are constrained to hold that this' dispute raised by the complainant cannot be classified as a consumer dispute.

8. The expression 'complaint' has been defined under section 2(l)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, which reads as under:

“'Complaint' means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that-•

(1) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive tra