Delhi

StateCommission

CC/361/2018

SUNENA VIRMANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

TANISHA KHAITAN

17 Apr 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments : 17.04.2018

Date of Decision : 03.05.2018

COMPLAINT NO.361/2018

 

In the matter of:

 

Ms. Sunena Virmni,

W/o. Shri Satish Kumar Virmani,

R/o. Tower 5/504, Uniworld Gardens,

Sector-47, Gurugram,

Haryana-122018.                                                             .........Complainant

 

Versus

 

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

          Through its Chairman/ Managing Director,

          DLF Centre, Sansad Marg,

          Delhi-110001.                                                   ….....Respondent No.1

 

2.       M/s. New Town Heights 90 Condominium Association

          New Town Heights, Sector-90,

          Gurgaon, Haryana – 122505                             ……..Respondent NO.2

         

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)

JUDGEMENT

 

          The present complaint at the stage of admission is liable to be dismissed on simple ground that complainant has already  received possession of the flat and conveyance deed has already been executed on 25.05.2016 copy of which is at page 196 to 210 of the file.

          The complainant has come forward on the allegations that she is an Advocate by profession and in possession of apartment no.A-143,  New Town Heights Sector-90, Gurugram, Haryana which had been booked with OP-1. She  has paid the entire amount  including parking cost but excluding the interest bearing maintenance security . OP-1 charged Rs.5,00,000/- towards two parking space which were a part of the common area. According to OP-1 the out standing balance was Rs.3,69,363.70 whereas after deducting charges towards parking space, complainant was entitled to refund of Rs.1,30,636.30. Hence this complaint for directing the OP to refund Rs.37,26,111/- details of which she mentioned in Appendix-1 which have been charged extra by OP-1. Interest on the said amount @18% per annum has also been prayed. Complainant  has also prayed refund of Rs.1,29,001/- charged extra, directions to OP-1 to bear maintenance charges till 24.09.2017 and restraining OP-2 from claiming maintenance till 24.09.2017, compensation of Rs,2,00,000/- has also been claimed.

          The relief claimed by the complainant is in the nature of rendition of accounts as to how much was due from the complainant and how much has been charged by the OP-1. The same is beyond the scope of  Consumer Protection Act. Remedy for the same lies by way of Civil Suit.

          It was held by National Commission  in A.N. Sehgal vs. DDA I  (1996) CPJ 34, Smita Roy vs. Excel Constructions II (2012) CPJ 204 and Harpal Arya vs. Housing Board Haryana II (2016) CPJ 36 that after receiving the possession the complainant  no more remains a consumer.

           This is more so when the complainant is an educated lady being advocate. She must not have paid the amount not due from her. The complaint is dismissed in limine.

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

          File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                    (O.P. GUPTA)

MEMBER MEMBER                                       (JUDICIAL)