This complaint is filed by the Complainants u/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OP-1 & 2 as due to deficiency on the part of the said OPs the Complainants have to incur excess registration cost.

After institution of this complaint date was fixed for admission hearing on 15.10.2020. On the said date an adjournment was sought for by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainants. In the interest of justice further date was given to the Complainants for admission hearing on 02.11.2020. But on the said date none was present on behalf of the Complainants.

We have carefully perused the petition of complaint along with all annexure as filed by the Complainants. The possession letter dated 25.02.2019 issued by the M/s. Maxwealth Developer Private Limited (Page no-116) reveals that the Complainants have received the physical possession of the covered car parking space complete in all respect with full satisfaction. Page no-117 denotes the confirmation of the Complainants that they have received the possession of the abovementioned flat complete in all respect with full satisfaction together with the key of the main door of the flat. It is seen by us that in the possession letters relating to the car parking space and the flat the Complainants put their respective signatures being satisfied.

In this respect we may mention to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Harpal Arya vs. Housing Board, Haryana, reported in II (2016) CPJ 36 (NC), decided on 04.01.2016, wherein in the paragraph no-14& 15 it is mentioned by Their Lordships which runs as follows:-

14. ‘Thereafter, petitioner was handed over possession of H. No-2740-C, in Sector 15, Sonepat…………………………………..

15. ……….. he had also taken possession of house on 27.10.2004. Further, as per possession certificate it is clear, that the petitioner had taken the possession, without any pre-conditions. Now after getting the possession, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to state, that house is not in a habitable condition. Once petitioner, had taken the possession with open eyes and without any pre-conditions, he ceases to be a consumer………. Therefore, on the face of it petitioner was not a consumer at the time of filing of the complaint, since there was no privity of contract between the parties. Therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.’

The aforementioned Ruling is very much applicable in the case in  hand as in the instant complaint also the Complainants got physical possession in the suit flat without any pre-condition and for this reason having regard to the abovementioned judgment we are of the view that the present Complainants cannot be the consumers at the time of filing this complaint, since there is no privity of contract between them. On this score alone the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Hence it is ordered that the CC/257/2020 is dismissed without being admitted being no maintainable.

However in the prayer portion of this complaint the Complainants have prayed for direction upon the OP-1 and 2 for handing over the completion certificate of the said building to them. In connection with this prayer we are of the view that the said prayer is very much tenable in the eye of law on the ground that it is the duty of the OP-1 and 2 to hand over the completion certification of the said building to the Complainants-purchasers. Until and unless it is provided to the purchasers, the purchasers cannot mutate their names with the concerned Municipality. Therefore the Complainants are at liberty to approach before the competent Court/Commission praying for providing the completion certificate only, if not provided and if not barred otherwise.

Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR.

Dictated and corrected by

Hon’ble Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Das