Judgment : 28.2.2017

            This is a complainant made by one Smt. Buli Ghosh, wife of Sunil Kumar Ghosh, of Sree Kanan, Bansdroni, P.S.-Regent Park, Kolkata-700 070 against (1) M.S.Kundu Construction, a proprietorship firm having its office at 68/B, Baghajatin Bazar, P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 092, OP No.1 and (2) Smt. Tandrani (Indrani) Kundu, sole proprietor of M/S Kundu Construction, resident of H/40A, Baghajatin, P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkakta-700 092, OP No.2, praying for an amount of cost and compensation to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- and also a direction upon OPs to deliver respective portion in favour of Complainant and cost.

            Facts in brief are that the Complainant is owner in respect of premises No.202, H. L. Sarkar Road, covering 5 cottahs 6 chitkas. OP No.1 & 2 being developer approached the Complainant to develop the property. The Complainant accepted the proposal and development agreement was entered on 12.12.2008. As per that agreement OP No.1 & 2 agreed to provide 33% of construction area of G+III storied building. This 33% area would be divided in 1^st floor, 2^nd floor and 3^rd floor in proportion including front and back portion out of which two flats must be in the 1^st floor, as per choice of the owner. Complainant appointed OP No.2 as power of attorney holder.

            After completion of the building OP provided one flat to the Complainant on the South West side of ground floor, which was not as per the stipulated agreement, another flat on the south east side of 1^st floor and one flat on the north side of the 2^nd floor. Complainant on good faith took possession of the same. However, after measuring the flat it was detected that OP provided less than 33% of constructed area. Complainant on several times approached the OPs for joint measurement in presence of Complainant’s architect, but, it could not be done. Long time has elapsed. But, OP did not pay heed to that so Complainant filed this case.

            OP filed written version and denies all the allegation of complaint. Further, OPs have submitted that this case has been filed after elapse of 9 years 3 months from the date of getting possession. Further, OP have stated that the Complainant has inducted tenant in all the flat to harass OP. So, OPs have prayed for dismissal of this case.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant did not file affidavit-in-chief and the case was fixed for argument.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.

            On perusal of agreement between parties, it is clear that it is entered into in the year 2001 and the complaint was filed on 26.11.2015.

            No petition is filed for condonation of delay of filing this complaint. As such it is clear that this complaint have been filed beyond the limitation period and the delay have not been condoned.

            It appears that the Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. She has prayed for delivery of possession of residue portion is not mentioned. So, Complainant himself is not clear about her prayer. There is no detail furnished in this complaint as to why an order for compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- be made in her favour.

            As such, we are of the view that Complainant have failed to prove that the allegation. So, she is not entitled to any relief.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/40/2015 and the same is dismissed on contest.