This complainant case was filed by Shankar Prasad against Vatika Home Makers . The brief facts of this case is taht the complainant book a flat in Vatika Green City , Dimna Road , Mango , Jamshedpur . At the time of booking the flat the complainant entered into an agreement dated 25^th April, 2004 with the Op . At the time of delivery of possession of the said flat , the Op asked the complainant to put his signatures on the voluminous documents without going through the contents of the documents . after taking possessionn of the said flat the complainant found that the quality of building materials used in the said flat were sub standard . thereafter , the complainant approached the op . and it was assured by the op . that all the grievances of the complainant will be redressed very soon . The Op did not provide the civic amenities to the complainant as per agreement and brochure displayed . the op is no where in perfection of construction work in the premises of  Vatika Green City,  Jamshedpur .The complainant purchased the said flat on the consideration amount of rs . 10,20,195/ from the Op . The complainant entered into an agreement on 25^th April , 2004 with the Op . The date of possession has not been reported by the complainant . The complainant has sought relife of Rs 10,20,195/ as cost of the flat , Rs 800,000/ as compensation for mental agony and Rs 10,000/ as litigation cost .

                               A notice was sent to the Op on 10.10.06. the Op failed to appear before us either in person or through their lawyer . Hence the record was put on Ex-parte hearing . 

                                                                       FINDINGS

We have gone through the record thoroughly and perused the materials supplied by the complainant on record . We find from the record that the compllainant is absent continuously since 07.05.08. Since then he failed to appear before us either in person or through his lawyer. He failed to prove his case that the substandard materials have been used in the constructions work . To this effect, he has not adduced an expert evidence by an independent agency that the civic amenities have not been provided  by the Op . Hence this complainant case has got no merit . Accordingly this complainant  case is fit to be dismissed and the same is dismissed . there is no order as to cost . 

               Office is directed to supply copies to both the parties free of cost .