Delhi

StateCommission

CC/2054/2017

JASBIR MATHUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S OMAXE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN GARG

20 Feb 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

 

Date of Hearing: 20.02.2018

 

                                                                                                        Date of Decision:23.02.2018

 

COMPLAINT NO-2054/2017

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

          Jasbir Mathur

          H.No: 1020, Dana Bhatpura,

          V.P.O Karala, Delhi-110081                                 ….Complainant                                                                                                                                                   

VERSUS

 

 

M/s Omaxe Ltd. through its managing

Director,

Omaxe House 7, Local Shopping Centre,

Kalkaji, New Delhi         -110019                                   ….Opposite Party

 

 

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:    Ms. Megha Gupta, Counsel for the Complainant.

                None for the OP.

 

 

PER: SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (G)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

1.           The whole controversy in this complaint filed before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) by Sh. Jasbir Mathur, resident of Delhi, for short complainant, against the M/s Omaxe Ltd., herein after referred to as Opposite parties, is whether the relief claimed by the complainant seeking compensation for delaying the delivery of the Flat No: 67, Second floor, Omaxe North Annexure II, Bahadurgarh is permissible when on the face of it the complainant has taken over the possession.
2.           Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the complaint are these.
3.           One Sh. Lalit Kumar booked a Flat No 67, Second floor, Omaxe North Annexure II, Bahadurgarh and made the payment from time to time as required by the OP. Later on 09.03.2013 Sh. Lalit Kumar transferred his rights in favour of the complainant and the said transfer was recorded. The transfer having been done the complainant stepped into the shoes of Sh. Lalit Kumar and became liable for and entitled to for all the rights which accrued in favour of Sh. Lalit Kumar qua the respondent. The present complainant has also paid Rs.1,73,091/- on 25.03.2017 to the OP on Endorsement for getting the flat in question transferred in his name.
4.           The possession of the flat was­­ handed over in May 2016. The gravamen of the complainant is that the OP delayed handing over the possession. OPs did not address on the subject of delay, nor paid any compensation.
5.           The compensation not having been allowed for delaying in delivery in possession the complainant has filed this complaint before this Commission for the redressal of his grievances.
6.           The matter was listed before us for admission hearing on 20.02.2018, when the counsel for the complainant appeared and advanced his arguments.
7.           We have carefully perused the records of the case.
8.           In the first instance we note that the complainant has taken over the possession of the flat and once possession is taken over, one is no longer a consumer and once one is not a consumer, one is not entitled to raise the Consumer Dispute.
9.           Having to regard is this fact, possession having been taken over the complainant is not a consumer and thus cannot raise the consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
10. We are fortified in our view by the judgments of the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Smita Roy vs Excel Construction reported in II (2012) CPJ 204 (NC) holding as under:

 

“One does not remain consumer after taking possession.”

 

Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble NCDRC also in the matter of Harpal Arya vs Housing Board Haryana as reported in II(2016)CPJ 36 (NC).

11. We order accordingly.
12. Copy of this order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required.
13.  File be consigned to records.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                 (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER (GENERAL)                                                                            MEMBER (JUDICIAL)