On hearing the counsel for the complainant and on perusal of the records, it is found that the complainant has come up with this complaint against the Ops for recovery of Rs.11,77,764=00 from the Ops being interest at 7% per annum from 1-9-2008 to 18-8-2010 which is accrued on account of delay in these Ops delivering possession of the flat alleged to had be agreed by the Ops under the construction agreement.

          2. Admittedly, the complainant after paying entire amount due to the Ops took delivery of possession of the flat during August 2010 and at that time it is found the complainant did not make any claim or raised any objections in these Ops not paying interest for delayed delivery of possession. The complainant has produced a copy of possession delivery letter of the Ops dated 18-8-2010, in which it is mentioned that after the complainant paying full value as per agreement took delivery of possession of the flat and it is further stated that if the complainant points out any snags and defects, the Ops under took to attend to them and the same will be completed in due course. As admitted by the complainant at the time of delivery of possession or at the time of paying full value of the flat did not point out to any defects or snags including nonpayment of interest for delayed delivery of possession. As against this the complainant it is found after taking possession of the flat, after morethan six months alleged to had sent an e-mail to the OP demanding payment of interest for delayed period. On considering these facts, we find that the complainant had acquiesced of his right of claiming interest for delay and now he has turned back claiming the same by filing this complaint.

          3. If the complainant was particular of claiming interest for delayed period, he would not have paid entire consideration of the flat amounting of Rs.1,00,00,000=00 without deducting the interest due to him or he would have taken possession under protest, but did not do so. Thus, the complainant when accepted possession after paying full value of the flat, the relationship between the complainant and the Ops as a consumer and service provider come to an end therefore the complaint before the Consumer Forum is not maintainable and the complainant cannot be called as a consumer. The complaint is not one with regard to any defects in the construction of the building or pending works. Hence the complaint is not maintainable.       

          4. Counsel representing the complainant submitted that the complaint is maintainable as the complainant is a consumer and relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 2004 SC page 2141, AIR 2005 SC page 1206 and AIR 2000 SC page 3573 by also referring to some other case to in the course of arguments. But has fail to convince us by inviting our attention similarity of the facts between this complaint and those decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore we are of the humble view that the facts are not similar and for the reasons stated above the complaint is not maintainable is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission. With the result, the complaint is dismissed at the stage of admission as not maintainable.