This is a complaint made by one Ann Barabara Alias, daughter of J.D.D.Sylvia and wife of Sudeep Choudhury, residing at 3^rd floor, Flat No.3B, 86, Dr. G. S. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 039, P.S.- Kasba against M/S S. P. Construction a partnership firm, 86, Dr. Girindra Sekhar Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 039, P.S.- Kasba, OP No.1, Sri Madan Prasad, 13E, Dr. Girindra Sekhar Bose Road, Kolkata-700 039, P.S.- Kasba, OP No.2 and Ravi Singh, 26, Raja S.C.Mullick Road, Kolkata-700 032, Jadavpur, OP No.3, Director General, Building Department, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, 5, S.N.Banerjee Road, Kolkata-700 013, Proforma OP No.2 and the Executive Engineer (Building), Building Department, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Proforma OP No.3, praying for Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony with 12% interest till realization by the OP No.1A & 1B and Rs.65,000/- by OP No.1A & 1B and for Rs.65,000/- by OP No.1A & 1B and  Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant is the owner of flat No.3B on 3^rd floor, measuring about 810 sq.ft. super built area in a G+3 storied building in respect of premises No.86, Dr. G. S. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 039, P.S.- Kasba on the strength of the registration deed dt.12.2.2013. At the time of purchase of the said flat OP No.1(a) and 1(b) showed the sanction plan of G+3 storied building the petition on being satisfied purchased this flat. After taking possession of the said flat Complainant was shocked to note many defects and incomplete works in her flat. The measurement of the flat was also found short by 23.74 sq.ft. Other defects were also noted inside the flat in respect of the doors, windows and other works. OPs, developer earned huge profit. Complainant requested the OP to complete the work, but, of no use. OP also pressurized for payment of extra Rs.65,000/-. So, Complainant filed this case.

            This case was transferred to this Forum, when it was fixed for filing written version by the OPs. OPs made appearance but did not file written version. A petition under Section 24A was pending which was also not heard due to absence of the OPs and thereafter the case was taken up for ex-parte hearing. Complainant filed a petition for appointment of Engineer Commissioner, which was disposed vide order No.16 dt.5.10.2016.

 Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein she has reiterated the facts in the complaint.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs which she has prayed.

            On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony with interest of 12%p.a. On perusal of the complaint petition and also affidavit-in-chief filed by the Complainant, it appears that there is no material to substantiate the manner of mental and physical harassment and how Complainant got aggrieved. It is worthwhile to mention here that Complainant purchased the flat, took possession and waited for about two years for raising the grievances. It is a common prudence for any prudent person purchasing flat in respect of it and if he or she finds any defect would have raised it before purchasing of the flat or before full payment. Complainant did not furnish any material to substantiate it. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no material for awarding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

            Other prayer is payment of Rs.65,000/- from OP No.1(a) & 1(b), there is no document to substantiate as to what prompted the Complainant to make such a demand. Xerox copies of the documents filed by the Complainant do not reveal that she paid Rs.65,000/- to OP No.1(a) & OP No.1(b). Accordingly, this prayer also cannot be allowed.

            Prayer ( c ) relates to claim of Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost. Since main relief sought by the Complainant failed to establish this, Forum is not in a position to award cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is because prayer for awarding the cost is what did follow the events in the present case. No such event is forthcoming so that cost cannot be awarded.

            Prayer (d) is attachment. On perusal of the complaint there does not appear any material to show as to why this prayer has been made. Accordingly, we are of the view that Complainant failed to establish the allegation which she brought.

            Hence,

ordered

            RBT/CC/162/2016 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.