Hon’ble Mrs. Dipa Sen (Maity), Presiding Member

          Both parties are present through their Ld. Advocates. Today is fixed for hearing of condonation of delay petition. The record is taken up for consideration of the same filed by the complainant. Whereby the complainant  has made a prayer for condonation of delay of 669 days.

          The complainant herein lodged a complaint u/s 17 of the C.P Act, 2019 in the matter of breach of Agreement of Sale of a flat dated 30^th December, 2011 between the parties and thereby alleging deficiencies by the Developers and prays for compensation of Rs. 5,66,371/- along with interest to the tune of 8% per annum for the period of delay of delivery of flat.

It appears from the record that the both parties have entered into an agreement on 30.12.2011 regarding purchasing of a flat on Tower II, Unit No. 109, plot No.5, Block DP, Sector V, in salt lake city from the promoter Developer Godrej Properties Ltd.

          The OP has already received C.C from concern Municipality of Panihati on 19.08.2015. The possession of the said flat has already been handed over. Registration/ Deed of conveyance was signed and executed on 05.03.2016. The Ld. Advocate of the OP has categorically stated that before taking possession the complainant has signed one declaration dated 29.01.2017, stating that the complainant being fully satisfied with the unit  have taken quiet, vacant, peaceful possession of the unit and they do not have any claim against the Developer in respect of the said flat.

          Seen the application and objection thereto. One of the main objectives behind enactment of the Consumer Protection Act is to render justice to the consumer to decide the complaint, as far as possible within the statutory period of limitation u/s 24A. It appears that the appellants had sufficient opportunity to file the case within due period. It is well settled that the complainant seeking condonation  of delay is required to explain each and every days delay in a convincing manner. But in the present case the complainant has filed this highly belated petition only to gain unjustified enrichment even after signing a declaration as full satisfied.

        Considering the submission made by both the Ld. Advocates of the parties and for the reason aforesaid the application for condonation of delay is rejected on contest.

          In view of the above, the Consumer Complaint case being No. CC/6/2020 is as well as disposed of as rejected as time barred.