This case arises over a complaint lodged by one Sri Jaydeep Banerjee against the Proprietor of Ashirbad Enterprise, Sri Sudhir Das and his wife Smt. Uma Das, praying for a direction upon the OPs to pay an amount of Rs. 12,43,450/- for doing some repairing works, another sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost.

            To narrate in brief, case of the Complainant, is that, he purchased a flat situated at Premises No. 114&115, Pailan Green park, Kolkata – 700 104 from the OP No. 2 and the said flat was registered on 29-09-2014.  He purchased the flat at a cost of Rs. 29,00,000/-.  In addition, he had to incur an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for registration purpose and another sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- for interior works.  It is alleged that the quality of construction is very poor.  That apart, construction of pump room has not yet been done; instead OPs have converted the space into a garage. Another complaint of the Complainant is that OPs have not handed over the completion certificate.  OPs have also not allegedly secured due license from the Government, also electrical common meter papers are in the custody of the OPs.  Allegedly, the OPs are also trying to construct one more flat on the ground floor in utter disregard to the sanctioned building plan.  The promoter is not contributing towards the maintenance of the building.  It is alleged that although such issues have been brought to the notice of the OP No. 1 by him, it has fallen on deaf ears.  It is claimed by the Complainant that he has obtained one estimate from M/s SBM Engineers, who has quoted a price of Rs. 11,43,450/- for the purpose of repairing the damage and for stopping the source of damage.  It is further stated that in order to make the wall waterproof, modular fittings and wardrobe need to be dismantled for which another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- would be required to pay the carpenter.  Complainant, thus, filed this case for relief.

            OP No. 1 contested the case by filing WV.  It is stated by this OP that the Complainant took possession of the property in the year 2014 and for more than two years, he is enjoying the property and without having any cause of action, raised some false and concocted allegations against him although he has left the project in the meantime.  So, this OP prayed for dismissal of the case.

            By filing a separate WV, OP No. 2 also contested the case.  Terming the allegations of the Complainant imaginary and bad in law, this OP prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for by him, or not.

                                                                         Decision with reasons

           The present case is primarily filed over Complainant’s dissatisfaction with certain civil works of the flat in question.  In order to substantiate such complaint, Complainant has furnished photocopy of an estimate purported to have been submitted by M/s SBM Engineers, Maheshtala, Kolkata – 700 141.  On going through the said copy of estimate, we find that the same is neither signed by any designated official of the company concerned nor the date of issue of said estimate or any reference no. is mentioned overthere.  In fact, on a cursory eye view of the estimate on record, it does not appear to be the letter-head of the company, but merely a computer generated print-out. We are afraid, without due authentication of the same from the concerned official, no reliance can be placed upon it and consequently, on the basis of such an unsigned and undated estimate, no direction can be given to the OP to incur the cost of said repairing works or reimburse it to the Complainant.  Moreover, how far the estimate was accurate vis-à-vis prevailing market rate, in absence of competitive estimates from other vendors, there is no way to ascertain the same.

            That apart, as stated hereinabove, Complainant has found several faults with the civil works done by the OP No. 1.  The allegations of the Complainant notwithstanding, question remains with the extent of damage as mentioned in the petition of complaint and actual cost involvement to carry out the job.  No expert opinion is filed by the Complainant to support his allegation.  On a thoughtful consideration of the nature of dispute, as narrated in the petition of complaint, it appears to us that the same is basically, essentially and predominantly a dispute of civil nature which cannot be decided in summary nature.  Accordingly, in our considered opinion, Consumer Forum is not the appropriate Forum to adjudicate such a dispute.  The Complainant should approach the appropriate Forum for relief.

Hence,

                                                                                 O R D E R E D

that CC/185/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any costs.