Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1650/2017

BIPLAB ROY & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

V.K. SINGH

11 Dec 2017

ORDER

2N THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :11.12.2017

Date of Decision :12.12.2017

Complaint No.1650/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

1.         Shri Biplap Roy, S/o. Shri B.R. Roy         

 

2.         Ms. Anjali Roy,

            W/o. Shri Biplap Roy,

 

Both Permanent address:

            295, Sector-1 Channi Himmat,

            Jammu Tawi-180015.

 

Both Presently residing at:

            17928 cranbrook Court,

            Northville, Michigan-48168,

            United States of America.

 

Both duly represented through their attorney:

            Shri Vijay Kumar Zadoo,

            S/o. Late Shri B.N. Zadoo,

            R/o. 295m Sector-1, Channi Himmat,

            Jammu Tawi-180015.                                                                    ……Complainants

                                                                        Versus

1.         M/s. DLF Home Developers Ltd.,

            DLF Centre, Sansad Marg,

            New Delhi.                                                                            …..Opposite party no.1

 

2.         M/s. DLF New Gurgaon Home Developers Pvt. Ltd.,

            1-E Jhandewalan Extn.,

            New Delhi-110055..                                                            …..Opposite party no.2

 

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                    Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                     Yes

 

Present:           Shri  Ajit Singh, Counsel for the complainant.

PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

 

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Biplap Roy and Smt. Anjali Roy, for short complainants, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection  Act Act, 1986 (the Act) against M/s. DLF Home Developers Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and praying for the relief as under:-

(i)      Award compensation of Rs.25,11,000/- (as already described vide para no.7 herein above) along with interest @18% per annum till the date of actual payment, to the complainants against the OPs for the delay caused in handing over the possession of the said apartment;

 

(ii)     Direct the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @18% per annum, illegally  additionally charged by the OPs towards the two parking spaces allotted to the complainants;

 

(iii)    Direct the OPs to allot and hand over two parking spaces being back to back i.e. adjacent to each other as promised under the said agreement and duly paid for by the complainants and if the same cannot be fulfilled by the OPs then in lieu of such back to back parking spaces OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- along with interest @18% per annum to the complainants as compensation;

 

(iv)    Direct the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.3,33,534/- along with interest @18% per annum, illegally charged by the OPs towards arbitrary and whimsical increase in the super area of the said apartment;

 

(v)     Award a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the complainants and against the OPs towards  the mental harassment caused to the complainants due to the unfair trade practices of the OPs and the litigation cost;

 

(vi)    Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present matter.

 

          Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the complaint are these.

          The complainants in need of an accommodation approached the OPs for the purpose of owning an apartment in the residential complex known as “New Town Heights” to be constructed by the OP at Sector-90, Gurgaon, Haryana Tripartite agreement was executed between the complainants and the OP.

          As per the agreement the OP had assured to hand over the physical possession of the apartment within 3 years from the date of agreement but later vide their letter dated 26.05.2009, the terms of the agreement were amended. As per the amended terms of agreement,   possession of the said apartment was to be handed over within 3 years from the date of booking. The complainants have alleged that the OP have miserably failed to hand over the physical possession of the apartment  within the time as contemplated in the amended agreement, nor allotted him two back to back car parking. The possession  of the apartment was finally handed over in March, 2014. The allegation of the complainant is that the possession having been handed over much after the stipulated time as indicated in the agreement, they are entitled for the  compensation.

          Since the OP was not responsive to the appeal made by the complainants, this complaint has been filed before this Commission alongwith an application praying for condonation of delay, for the redressal of their grievances.

          This matter was listed before us for admission hearing on 11.12.17 when the ld counsel for the complainants appeared and advanced his arguments. We have perused the records of the case.

          In the first instance we note that the complainants have already taken over the possession of the flat as averred in para-6 of the complaint. It is a trite law that once the possession is taken over by the complainant, he is no longer a consumer. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Smita Roy vs. Excel Construction II(2012) CPJ 204 and Harpal Arya vs. Housing Board Haryana II (2016) CPJ 36 have held as under:-

“One does not remain consumer after taking possession in which case one is not entitled to raise a consumer dispute under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986.”

 

          Relying on the law laid down by the Hon’ble NCDRC we are of the considered view that the complainants having taken over the possession are not consumers in which case they are not entitled to raise a consumer dispute.

          Accordingly we dismiss the complaint at the admission stage itself.

          Ordered accordingly.

          Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required.

File be consigned to records.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                            (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)