This is a complaint made by (1) Subir Chatterjee, son of Late Sushil Chatterjee, (2) Sri Ganesh Chandra Biswas son of Late Anil Biswas, (3) Mrs. Piu Ghoshal Ghosh, wife of Somnath Ghosh, (4) Pradip Kumar Bhowmick, son of Late Rashik Lal Bhowmick, (5) Snehasis Chatterjee, son of Late Sukumr Chatterjee and (6) Swapan Kumr Mahadani all are residing at premises No.253, Ho-Chi-Minh Sarani, Shakuntala Park, 12 feet Road, Kolkata-700 061 against (1) Md. Habib Mollah, proprietor of M/s. Silver Enterprise 554/B, Block-N, New Alipur, Kolkata – 700 053, OP No.1,  (2) Shri Sushil Kumar Chatterjee, son of Late Surendralal Chatterjee, 253, Ho-Chi-Minh Sarani, P.S.-Behala, Kolkata-700 061, Proforma Respondent, praying for a order directing the OP to complete the pending work or pay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for completing the pending work and also pay Rs.2,50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.2,50,000/- for compensation.

            Facts in brief are that Complainants are law abiding citizen and resides at the  address given above. OP No.1 claims himself a reputed developer and entered into a development agreement on 30.6.2006 with proforma OP for construction of a G+3 storied building upon the land owned by OP No.2 Proforma OP. After getting sanction of the plan, OP No.1 was entrusted the work of constructing the building. As per development agreement OP No.1 entered into several sale agreements with the Complainants for sale of different flats on different floors. As per agreement OP No.1 assured that flats in question shall be regularized by invoking Rule 25 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation. On such assurances, Complainants paid the consideration amount to the OP for execution of sale deed in their own names and OP No.1 registered several sale deeds in the names of the Complainants.

            Complainants on several times requested OP to complete the pending works (i) front side/ road side get and boundary wall, (ii) Entry pathway, (iii) outside colouring, (iv) staircase lighting. Since OP did not complete these works, Complainants issued notice through one Advocate Mr.Hirak Basu on 9.2.2016, for completing the works. But, OP No.1 did not pay any heed to them. So, Complainants filed this case.

            On the basis of above facts, notices were issued to the OP. But, OP did not appear to contest this case. So, the case was heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

            Complainants filed affidavit-in-chief where they have reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Further, on behalf of the Complainants the case was argued.

            Main point for determination is whether the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the complaint, it appears that six persons have filed this complaint and it is stated in the petition of complaint that all of them purchased flats from OP No.1. However, on perusal of the sale deed, it appears that one deed which is in favour of Complainant No.5, Snehasis Chattrerjee has been filed. This Xerox copy of the deed reveals that the registration of the flat was made in September, 2010. This complaint has been filed on 1.8.2016 i.e. after a lapse of about six years.

            The only grievance of the Complainant is that OP No.1 did not make complete front side, road side gate and boundary wall, outside colouring  and stair case lighting. It is unfortunate that Complainant No.5, Snehasis Chatterjee put these facts after lapse of about six years. So, there does not appear any cogent reason that this case is covered any deficiency in services. Also, it is clear that other Complainants who have been named in the cause title have not filed any document whatsoever, even Xerox copy to substantiate their allegations. It is clear that this complaint has been beyond the period of limitation.

             In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in this complaint.

Hence,

ordered

             CC/334/2016 is dismissed ex-parte.