Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1066/2017

SHASHI PUROHIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

EARTHCON CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MOHD. AMANULLAH

10 Oct 2017

ORDER

  IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

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

                                                                    Date of Arguments:  10.10.2017

          Date of Decision:       17.10.2017

Complaint No. 1066/2017

In the matter of:

Ms. Shashi Purohit

W/o Gulam Mohiuddin

R/o Jameela House

Haidakhan Road,  Chillianaula,

Ranikhet—263645, Uttrakhand.                                                                   ……..Complainant

                                                                        Versus

 

1. Earthcon Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Through Managing Director

B-11, Sector-1

            Noida-201301

 

ALSO AT:

 

D-266, Ground Floor, Defence Colony

New Delhi-110024.

 

ALSO AT:

 

70-T T/F 7, Sector DDA Flat

Jasola, Sarita Vihar

New Delhi-110025.

                                                                                                            …….Respondents

CORAM

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/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No

SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

            The case set up by the complainant is that she booked three BHK flat in of “IT  Residency” project Bhanghel, adjacent sector 106, NOIDA, UP by making initial payment of Rs. 3,20,000/-on 04.09.08.  She was allotted H/S1 vide letter dated 02.02.10.  The flat was to be completed within 18 months from the date of booking.  The flat is neither complete nor handed over to the complainant inspite of the fact that registry of the flat has been done on 28.12.12.

2.         The other plea of the complainant is initial allotment is  H/S1 which  is on  Ist floor but at the time of registry she is allotted H/T1 which is on  IIIrd floor.  OP assured to install elevators/lifts very soon.  Hence this complaint for asking OP 1 to install elevators/lifts, pay damages to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum for mental agony and cost of litigation.

3.         We have gone through the material on record and heard the counsel for complainant at the stage of admission.  On our asking the complainant filed copy of builder buyer agreement dated 02.02.10 and sale deed dated 28.12.12. Perusal of the sale deed reveals that clause 5 provides that vendor has handed over vacant, actual and peaceful possession of the property to the vendee on the spot. In view of this there does not remain any scope for grievance that flat was being changed or there is any deficiency or that complainant has difficulty in climbing the third floor without lift.

4.         Moreover if the complainant feels that something is due, she can invoke her remedy in civil court.

5.         It was held by National Commission in  Smita Roy vs. Excel Construction II (2012) CPJ 204 and Harpal Arya vs. Housing Board Haryana C II (2016) CPJ 36 that after receiving possession a person does not remain consumer. Similar view was taken by National Commission in A.N.Sehgal vs. DDA I(1996) CPJ 34.

6.         For the foregoing reasons the complaint is dismissed in limini.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                                                        (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                                                                             MEMBER(JUDICIAL)