Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1035/2016

MR. VIRENDRA ARYA & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

VINAY SHARMA

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

 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. 1035/2016

 

In the matter of:

           

          Mr. Virender Arya

          S/o Dharam Pal Arya

          C-2/103, Capital Apartments

          Near Mayur Vihar

          Vasundhara Enclave,

          Delhi-110096                                                                   .......Complainant

 

 

                                      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 15.10.13.  In para 16 they have mentioned that sale deed has been executed on 15.03.15.  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. 66,89,545/- with future interest @ 18% per annum, Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 25,000/- as legal expenses.  They have also prayed for refund of Rs.3,16,553.13/- and Rs. 6,00,000/- with future interest @ 18% per annum towards unilateral increase of 5% of the super area and stilt/open parking charges. On enquiry by me the counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant paid Rs. Sixty lacs apprxm. for the flat.   Now they want refund of more than that amount meaning that they want to retain the flat free.

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

5. 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.  Neither the facts of the said case are available before me nor an order at the stage of admission constitute precedent.

6.    The complaint is dismissed in limini.

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