PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 25.4.2013 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, he State Commission in S.C. Case No. FA/448/2012 Om Tara Maa Construction & Ors. Vs. Mrs. Alaka Roy by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was partly set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed complaint before learned District Forum and alleged that OP/respondent delayed delivery of possession of the flat by 4 months and failed to construct the flat with standard and good quality of materials. It was further alleged that OP is guilty of not paying electric charges amount Rs.1,120/- and have also failed to handover clearance certificate, fit certificate, soil test report and other documents. OP contested complaint and submitted that delay in delivery of possession was not intentional, but beyond control of OP and construction is as per standard and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.5,000/- for delayed possession, Rs.9,000/- for rent for 3 months along with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,50,000/- towards cost and expenses for proposed construction and Rs.2,000/- as cost, totalling Rs.4,66,000/-. OP filed appeal before learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order partly allowed appeal and set aside order of awarding compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- towards cost and expenses for proposed construction against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard Authorized Representative for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. 4. Authorized Representative of the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly allowed Rs.3,50,000/- as cost and expenses for plastic paints and learned State Commission vide impugned order has committed error in modifying order of District Forum; hence, revision petition be admitted. 5. Perusal of record reveals that complainant has claimed Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation for proposed cost and expenses for the plastic paint of the floor and for the grill and doors. 6. Perusal of agreement for joint venture reveals that plastic paint was to be provided inside the wall. This agreement nowhere depicts that plastic paint was to be provided on the floor, grill and doors. Learned State Commission rightly observed as under: ut so far as it relates to awarding of compensation in favour of the complainant in respect of the proposed construction, we are of the considered opinion that since there is no adequate and sufficient material on record in this regard in respect of the complainant case and regard being had to the fact that the complainant has not been able to produce cogent and reliable evidence in support of her case of failure on the part of the OPs to effect proposed construction, we think it was not just and proper on the part of the Ld. District Forum to award a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in favour of the complainant 7. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.