The impugned order dated 30.4.2015, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No.39 of 2010, has been challenged by way of this appeal by the complainant M/s. Boutique International, pleading that the State Commission wrongly dismissed the complaint, in question, taking the ground that the complainant had already sold the flat, in question, and hence, ceased to be a ‘consumer’. 2. It has been stated in the consumer complaint that the complainant M/s. Boutique International booked a flat in the housing scheme of the OP-Unitech Ltd. in their Project “The World Spa” by paying a booking amount of Rs.16,04,750/- on 13.9.2004, i.e. about 10% of the basic price of the flat. The OP allotted them Flat No.502 in Block B-3 of the Project for a total consideration of Rs.1,62,63,675/- vide their allotment letter dated 13.9.2004. An “Agreement to Sell” was also executed between the parties on 23.9.2004. The complainant raised a loan of Rs.1,32,32,346/- from the HSBC Bank, New Delhi for making payment to the OP. It has been alleged that the OP caused delay of about 62 months against the given time schedule of 25 months in completing the construction activity at the site. This resulted in financial loss to the complainant for which they were liable to be compensated, as they had paid interest for the loan raised from the Bank. The complainant filed the consumer complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay interest on amount of Rs.87.68.271/- upto 24.9.2009 alongwith further interest of 15% till final payment was made and a further sum of Rs.6 lakhs as compensation against mental harassment. 3. The complaint was contested by the OP-Builder saying that the complainant had ceased to be a ‘consumer’, as it had sold the flat in question on 30.12.2009 to one Mr. Ashok Bajpai. The State Commission vide impugned order concluded that the complainant was not a consumer of the builder on the date of filing the complaint and hence, the complaint was not maintainable. The State Commission relied upon the orders passed by this Commission in First Appeal No.456 of 2014, Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Krishan Lal Malik decided on 17.10.2014 and in Sumit Chaudhary Vs. HUDA and others, IV 2011 CPJ 570 (NC), decided on 25.8.2003. 4. Being aggrieved against this order, the complainant is before this Commission by way of present first appeal. 5. During hearing before me, the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant admitted that the flat had already been sold by the complainant and a Sale Deed to that effect had also been executed and the sale consideration received. The learned counsel, however, has drawn attention to an order of this Commission in Poonam Chambers “B” Commercial Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Aluplex India Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Navin Keswani, Managing Director, First Appeal No.383 of 2011, decided on 1.2.2013, that the complainant was entitled to file claim against the OP, even after the flat had been sold. 6. I have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. Admittedly, the flat, in question, was sold by the complainant before the complaint at hand was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission has rightly relied upon the order passed by this Commission in HUDA Vs. Krishan Lal Malik (supra) and Sumit Chaudhry Vs. HUDA (supra), and concluded that the complainant was not a consumer on the day of filing the complaint. I do not find any reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission. The order passed by this Commission in Poonam Chambers “B” Commercial Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Aluplex India Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Navin Keswarni, Managing Director (supra) also does not help the appellant in any manner, because the facts in the said case are different from the facts in the present case. In that case, the first party failed to give possession of the property, even after accepting the consideration of the sale price and terminated the agreement. In the present case, the flat was sold to the 3rd party before filing the complaint; hence, it has rightly been stated that the appellant ceased to be a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. I, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission, as there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the same. This first appeal is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed in limine and the order passed by the State Commission upheld. |
