Delhi

StateCommission

CC/07/245

MS. RADHIKA KANTIPUDI AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Dec 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                   Date of Decision: 17.12.2015

Complaint Case No. 245/2007

In the matter of:

1. Ms. Radhika Kantipudi

W/o Shri Gnyandeep Kantipudi

Resident of 16, Lodhi Estate

New Delhi-110003

 

2. Mr. Gnyandeep Kantipudi

S/o Shri Padmanabhaiah Kantipudi

Resident of 16, Lodhi Estate

New Delhi-110003                                       ........Complainants

 

Versus

 

Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited

Through its Managing Director,

Head Office:

Sahara India Centre

8^th Floor

Kapoor thala,

Aliganj,

Lucknow

 

Site/Marketing Office:

Sahara Mall

Sector 28,

Main Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road

Gurgaon (Haryana)                                               ....Opposite Party                                                        

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                                    -                       Member (Judicial)

S C JAIN                                             -                       Member

 

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

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

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

Judgement

1.     Present complaint is filed disclosing that the complainants booked a housing unit No. A-03/1003 on Ninth Floor, Block No. A, Sahara Grace, Gurgaon having super built up area of 3775.85 sq. ft., on 30.03.2006. The total consideration was Rs. 73,91,227/-. As per flats buyer’s agreement, OP Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (in short the OP) was to handover the possession of the flat within a period of thirty months of the date of agreement. It was also specifically mentioned that the physical possession would be handed over on 30.03.2006. Flat Buyer’s agreement dated 18.09.2003 is not in dispute. Contention of the complainants is that they paid an amount of Rs. 87,54,630/- to the OP and despite that they were not handed over the possession of the flat. Complaint was filed on 17.12.2007. Defence raised by the OP is that the possession of the flat in question was handed over to the complainants on 27.06.2008. The complainants however sold the said flat to a third party by way of a conveyance deed dated 02.05.2012 for an amount of Rs. 1,95,00,000/-. Sale deed was executed on 02.05.2012.
2.     During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant Sh. Ishant Manchanda stated that a certified copy of the aforesaid sale deed has not been supplied to the complainants. We have perused the record carefully. Sale deed was filed by the OP on 12.09.2014. In a span of one year, the complainants did not raise any objection to the authenticity of the said sale deed. It can thus safely be concluded that the flat in question stands sold by the complainant to a third party during the pendency of the present complaint.
3.     Settled law on the subject is that disposing of the goods in question during the pendency of the litigation takes the person out of the ambit of the definition ‘consumer’ as provided under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complainants, therefore, cease to be ‘consumer’ in the eyes of law. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable. The same is hence dismissed.
4.     Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

(S C JAIN)
MEMBER