Delhi

StateCommission

A/159/2016

POONAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Apr 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: Delhi

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

                

                      Date of Argument: 01.04.2016

Date of Decision: 04.04.2016

 

 

First Appeal-159/2016

                 

 

        In the Matter of:

               

                Poonam

          Wife of Shri Pramod Kumar

          Resident of B-38, Gali No. 1, Sadat Pur Extn.

          Karawal Nagar, New Delhi-110094

 

……Appellant     Versus   TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001                                                                                …….Respondent

CORAM

  O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

  S.C. Jain, Member

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

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.             The appellant has impugned order dated 04.11.2015 passed by Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi vide which the District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for harassment inclusive of litigation expenses in favour of the appellant. The appellant has come in the present appeal for enhancement of said amount.

2.             Facts giving rise to the same were that in February 2006 the appellant booked a flat basic costs of which was Rs. 18,31,500/-, respondent assured to hand over the possession within two years. On 07.07.2008 the appellant received allotment letter allotting flat No. T4-0603 and complainant was assured to be delivered the flat within 24 months. In 2010-11 OP called the complainant in its office and told that concerned government authority had not permitted to construct Tower T. It persuaded appellant to have flat in Tower S inspite of Tower T. Agreement was executed on 16.07.2010 according to which flat was to be delivered within two years from date of execution of agreement. In March 2014 complaint was filed before District Forum. On 19.10.2015 conveyance deed of the flat in question was executed.

3.             The District Forum noted the fact of execution of conveyance deed during the pendency of the case and found that since complaint was one year old only, compensation of Rs. 30,000/- was sufficient.

4.             The short question which survives in the present appeal is as to whether after execution of conveyance deed and taking of possession whether the complainant remains a consumer.

5.             National Commission held in Samita Roy Vs. Excel Construction & Another II (2012) CPJ 204 that in such circumstances person booking flat does not remain consumer. The similar view was taken by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbati in Appeal No. 1153/2004 titled as Smt. Suryakala Bai Vs. Shakuntla Gang Dhrao Kulkarni on 05.01.2010.

 

6.             In view of the aforesaid position, no fault can be found in the impugned order. Anyhow, we are not disturbing the amount awarded by District Forum as the respondent has not challenged the same. The appeal is dismissed in limini at the stage of admission itself.

                A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as well as to District Forum for necessary information.

                File be consigned to record room.

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

(S.C. Jain)

                                                                                               Member