Shri Bagwan                 V/s             Delhi Development Authority

Case No. 679/10

09.11.17

Present:      Complainant in person

Sh. P. K. Aggarwal Adv. for the OP

 Arguments are heard. We proceed to decide the case.

The complainant has filed the present complaint by pleading gross deficiency in service on the part of OP after taking the possession of the flat No.466, Sector-19B, Dwarka for issuing directions to the OP to pay interest on the amount of approximately Rs.21 lacs deposited by him with the OP, to make the loss good incurred by him while getting the refund of stamp duty from the Treasury and to pay compensation for mental agony etc. 

 In the written statement OP has inter-alia pleaded that the contract between the parties was a concluded contract and the complainant was allotted alternative flat and the present case does not come within the ambit of ‘consumer dispute.’

 In view of the fact that the present complaint has been filed after taking the possession of the flat, the complainant ceased to be a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.  To substantiate our finding, we place reliance on decisions rendered by the Delhi State Commission in complaint case No.393/10 - Shiv Narain Gupta Vs. DDA, decided on 17.08.16 and recently in FA No. 147/2017 – Col. D. Pratap Vs. DDA decided on 17.04.2017 wherein it has been held that after taking the possession, the appellant (consumer) no more remains a consumer.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be given dasti to the parties.  File be consigned to record room.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                           (N.K. GOEL)           

MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDENT

Announced on 09.11.17.