Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1034/2016

MR. PIYUSH GOEL & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

PAWAN SHREE AGGARWAL

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

1. IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

                                                Date of Arguments: 22.09.16

Date of Decision:    29.09.16

 

Complaint No. 1034/2016

 

In the matter of:

           

1. Mr. Piyush Goel

    Apartments No. 83, SRM Society,

    Plot No. 106, Patparganj,

    Delhi.                                                               

 

 

2. Ms.Shweta Goel                                     

    Apt 83,SRM Society

    Plot 106 Patparganj

    Delhi-110092.                                                    ......Complainants

 

 

                                                Versus

 

 

DLF New Gurgaon Homes Developers Ltd.

DLF Centre Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001.                                        ....Opposite party

 

 

 

CORAM

                  

 

                                                                                     

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

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

 

•  

 

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

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

        The complaint is liable to be dismissed at very outright  for the simple reason that complainant has already taken possession of the booked flat and conveyance deed has also been executed.  The complainants themselves have mentioned in para 9 of the complaint that they took delivery of the flat on 16.11.13.  In para 16 they have mentioned that sale deed has been executed on 15.04.15.  Now the present complaint is for declaration that op has committed an unfair trade practice and direct them to discontinue unfair trade practice and the declaration that the services of the OP are deficient. This relief is beyond purview of consumer protection act. Consumer fora cannot grant any abstract declaration.

2.       It has been held by National Commission in Smita Roy vs. Excel Construction II (2012) CPJ 204 that after possession is taken, the person booking the flat no more remains consumer.

3.   It is strange that complainant has claimed Rs. 52,33,095/- with future interest @ 18% per annum which includes compensation, Rs. 1,00,000/-  for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 24,000/- as legal expenses./  They have also prayed for refund of Rs. 1,79,438/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- with future interest @ 18% per annum towards unilateral increase of 5% of the super area and stilt/open parking charges and PLC charges of Rs. 5,28,000/-.

 4.  On enquiry by me the counsel for the complainant submitted that

complainant paid Rs. 59,00,000/- appox for the flat.   Now they want refund of more than that amount meaning that they want to retain the flat free.

5.    I cannot resist myself from mentioning that whatever lacuna were there in the flat, came to the knowledge of the complainant in 2013 when they took possession. Complaint filed on 5.9.16 is barred by limitation.

6.       The counsel for the complainant relied upon order dated 20.07.16 in complaint case No. 609/16 vide which another complaint on similar facts was admitted by this Bench.  Neither the facts of the said case are available before me nor an order at the stage of admission constitute precedent.

The complaint is dismissed in limini.

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

                                                                       

 

                                                                                                            (O.P.GUPTA)

                                                                                                MEMBER(JUDICIAL)