This is a complaint made by one Tamal Paul, son of Late Nirmal Kumar Paul, residing at 19, Banamali Banerjee Road, 2^nd floor, Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 082 against (1) Unicon Construction, a partnership firm, having office at 84/4, M.G.Road, P.S. & P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 082, OP No.1, (2) Swapan Chowdhury, son of Late Gopal Chandra Chowdhury, residing at 37/N, Kalipur Kancha Road, P.S. & P.O.-Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 082, OP No.2, (3) Sanajit Nandi, residing at 11/12, Banamali Banerjee Road, PO.& PS- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 082, OP No.3 and (4) Mrs. Raktima Chatterjee, residing at 84/4, M. G. Road, P.O. & P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 082, OP No.4 praying for a direction upon the OPs to repair the roof of the flat of the Complainant, alternatively to pay Rs.65,040/- for repairing the roof of the flat of the Complainant, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and also to pay another compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant used to reside in his flat at 178,  Sodepur First Lane, Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 082 since 2010 with his family. Complainant planned for purchasing a bigger flat in the same locality. From a friend, he got information that one G+2 building is under construction. He approached the developer and learnt that ground floor has already been booked and the 1^st floor was already booked by other party and only 2^nd floor was available. The Complainant decided to by the 2nd floor at the consideration of Rs.24,80,000/- and accordingly an agreement for sale was made.

            Complainant applied for home loan from Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. and at the same time started for a buyer of his existing flat in which he was residing because to raise the cost of registration of the new flat.

            To pay the amount to the developer on 29.10.2013, Complainant got registration of the new flat at Alipore registry office, after paying the entire consideration money. He took loan from HDFC to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- and pays Rs.80,000/- personally.

            On 1.11.2013 Complainant took possession and a meeting took place on that date. At the time of taking possession on 29.10.2013 the Complainant informed the developer that the terrace surface has no oily surface which would help water to drain by surface slope and from rain pipe and there was no precaution to avoid cracks. Complainant was of the view that pidilite roof treatment and the nature of treatment done and product used on the said terrace was not up to the mark. After three months of possession Complainant found crack in the surface of the terrace. Complainant informed this fact to the OP. But of no use. So, Complainant brought valuer and calculated that it requires treatment for which cost of Rs.65,040/- is required. After taking possession, Complainant suffered lot due to roof crack and other defects in the building.

            OP filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. OPs denied specifically the allegations of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

            Complained filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against this OPs have filed questionnaire to which Complainant has replied. Complainant has filed certain documents.

            Main point for determination is that whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            It appears that Complainant purchased the flat on 31.10.2013 by a deed of conveyance. Further, Complainant filed this case on 18.8.2016 that means Complainant filed this complainant after a lapse of about three years. As per Consumer Protection Act any complaint has to be filed within two years. No petition is filed on behalf of the Complainant for condoning the delay made by the Complainant in filling this case. Further there is no document to establish that exactly Rs.65,040/- is required for repairing the roof and the cracks in the roof as the treatment of the roof was not done by the OP as per conveyance deed. Once it is established that there is no document which reflects the roof treatment was wrongly done; the question of granting the relief as prayed by the Complainant cannot be allowed.

            Similarly, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and another Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment does not warrant to allow as no grounds are mentioned in it.

            So, we are of the view that Complainant failed to prove the allegations brought by him.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/383/2016 and the same is considered and dismissed on contest.