Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/16/67

Kalpana Bharti - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Shiv Kumar Agarwal, Director RGBK Tower - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjeet Giri

31 May 2022

ORDER

District Consumer Commission, Bokaro.

Case No. 67/2016

  Date of Filing-28-06-2016

 Date of Order-31-05-2022

Kalpana Bharti

R/o RGBK Tower, Gujrat Coloney, Chas, Bokaro

                                      Vr.

Sri Shiv Kumar Agarwal, Director RGBK Tower, Gujrat Coloney, Chas, Bokaro, Present residing at Sri Mension A-17, City Center, Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City

Present:-

          Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

            Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

                                                -Order-

1.   Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. for provide service according to agreement and catalogue of the RGBK Towers and to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- for it and also to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and to pay litigation cost to her.
2.   Complainant’s case in brief is that she along with other persons have entered into the agreement for purchase of flat at RGBK Towers Gujrat Colony, Chas and paid the amount as per agreement. Accordingly flats were constructed and at the time of delivery of possession it was found that there were defects as mentioned at para 5 of the complaint petition from point No. a to n for which request was made with the O.P. but it was not removed hence case has been filed before this Commission.
3.   Inspite of due service of notice O.P. did not turned up hence case has proceeded for Ex-parte hearing and disposal.
4.   In support of the case complainant has filed photo copy of the agreement dt. 17.12.2008, photo copy of application dt. 14.03.2016 & 18.03.2016 addressed to the O.P., except above mentioned evidence no any other evidence ( either oral or documentary) has been produced by the complainant.
5.    It reveals from perusal of copy of the agreement paper it shows that it has been executed on 17.12.2008 and at page 4 para 3 it is mentioned that construction of the building has to be completed within 18 months with grace period of 6 months. In this way construction of the building was to be completed on or before 17.12.2010, therefore, cause of action of the case will arise on 17.12.2010 and since then period for filing of complaint is two years only. This case has been filed on 28.06.2016 much after the lapse  of more than 2 years period, in this way it is hopelessly time barred.
6.   On merit also it appears that there is no evidence ( either oral or documentary) by the complainant to prove the deficiency in service as alleged in para 5 of the complaint petition. Therefore, on merit also prayer of the complainant is not acceptable.
7.    Accordingly, this case is being dismissed as it is time barred and the deficiency in service has not been proved by any evidence.