State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rima Kumra vs Delhi Devlopment Authority on 9 August, 2017
Daily Order IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments: 04.08.17 Date of Decision: 09.08.17 Complaint No. 977/2017 In the matter of: Rima Kumra D/o Shri Ashok Kumar Kumra R/o A-25, New Rajinder Nagar New Delhi-110060. ......Complainant VERSUS Delhi Development Authority Through its Vice Chairman D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, INA New Delhi-110023. .....Opposite Party C ORAM 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: Mr. Amar Nath Gupta with the complainant. PER: SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER JUDGEMENT
Issue involved in this complaint is confined to whether the complainant after getting the possession of the flat from DDA is a consumer and if so, whether this Commission can issue any direction since the dispute involved in the complaint, computing value of goods and compensation claimed, exceeds Rs. One crore.
2. Facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the complaint are these.
Smt. Rima Kumar resident of New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as complainant, has filed this complaint before this Commission against Delhi Development Authority(Authority for short) alleging deficiency on their part in not providing the electrical/ sanitation and other items while handing over possession of the flat bearing number 605, in Ganga Block., No. G-3, Pocket 6, Sector D, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070, on 28.04.2014.
3. The complainant responding to a scheme advertised by the Authority, namely, "DDA Housing Scheme 2010" had applied for a HIG Flat, paying the registration amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Draw of lot followed thereafter on 18.04.2011 and the complainant having been declared successful in the said draw of the lot, was informed by the Authority vide their letter dated 10.09.2011, that she has been allotted the flat as indicated above and by a subsequent letter dated 30.11.2013 she was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 95,45,719/- after adjusting the registration money already paid, which amount was duly paid by the complainant on 18.02.2014.
4. The authority on receipt of the payment, offered the complainant to take possession of the flat. The complainant brought to the notice of the Authority that certain sanitary and electrical items have not been installed in the flat. However on the insistence of the Authority she took physical possession of the flat on 12.01.2015.
5. We have perused the possession letter (Page14- Annexure(6). The said letter is reproduced below:
Annexure C-6 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY POSSESSION SLIP Reference Allotment No.H/365(150)2015/DDA/98 Dated 28.04.14.
Certified that I have taken over the possession of HIG flat No. 605 ast Floor 615 in Ganga Block No. G-3 in pocket-6, Sector-D, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Group - III from Delhi Development Authority today i.e. 12.1.15 alongwith necessary, fitting and fixtures and no defects are apparent flat is taken over with/without furniture as per list enclosed.
The performa showing the inventory of fitting and fixtures has been checked thoroughly and found correct.
Handed over Taken over Sd/- Signature of Allottee JE/SED-7/DDA Date 12.01.15 RIMA KUMRA NAME IN BLOCK LETTERS
6. The complainant, since found certain items in the flat, vital for the living not upto the mark approached the Authority but all her endeavour and efforts done to get the unfinished work finished proved an exercise in futility.
7. The complainant has consequently filed a complaint before this Commission under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 prying for relief as under:
a) Compensation of Rs. 42,50,000/- calculated @ 15% simple interest on an amount of Rs. One crore for 34 months from 31.07.2014 to the date of filing of the instant complaint;
b) Further interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its payment by the OP;
c) Compensation to the tune of Rs. One lakh for immense mental agony and harassment willfully caused by OP to the complainant; and d) Cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-
8. The complaint was listed before us for admission hearing on 04.08.2017 when the Ld. Counsel alongwith the complainant appeared and advanced arguments. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.
9. The Ld. Counsel in the first instance has drawn our attention to the application filed, praying for condonation of delay, stating that the same has been filed more out of abundant caution. The cause of action in the matter arose first on 28.07.14, the date on which the authority had offered to hand over the possession of the flat and second time on 12.01.2015 the date on which the physical possession was actually handed over, but it is according to the complainant a continuous cause of action since the authority has done nothing to finish the unfinished work.
10. Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act envisages filing of complaint within two years from the date the cause of action arose, which cause of action by the admission of the complainant herself arose on 12.01.15, the date of taking over possession of the flat. We do not agree with the submission of the complainant that it is a continuous cause of action. Cause of action was complete on the date of taking over of possession. Cause of action which is complete, as is the case here, cannot be recurring cause of action as held by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in the matter of Vijay Bansal vs HUDA & Anr. As reported in III(2012) CPJ 505(NC).
11. There is delay of about 160 days in the matter. No cogent or tangible ground has been set out for condontion of delay. Delay of 199 days not condoned since sufficient cause for delay not shown, as ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of DDA vs. Krishan Lal Nandroyog IV (2010) CPJ 7 (SC). The NCDRC in the matter of Nitish Goyal vs. Symphony Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. IV (2016) CPJ 679(NC) has held that delay of 209 days, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation cannot be condoned. Having regard to this, delay in the absence of any satisfactory ground, is not condoned. Consequently the complaint being barred by limitation is dismissed.
12. Secondly the amount involved in the complaint and the compensation prayed for being more than Rs. One crore, this Commission lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear this case as contemplated under the provisions of section 17(1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which says that the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods, services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore. In the given case the three Member Bench of the NCDRC in the matter of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. In CC No.. 97/2016 decided on 07.10.16 have held that the consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods and hiring and availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered, alongwith the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer forum.
13. Finally on merit, there appears to be no case since the complainant having taken over physical possession of the float unconditionally, is no longer a consumer. We have read and re-read the possession letter. There is no whisper in the possession letter that the complainant has taken over possession in protest or subject to certain condition or with a rider. This leads to an inevitable and inescapable conclusion that the complainant is no longer a consumer. A Five Member Bench of the NCDRC I the matter of A.N Saigal vs. DDA reported in 1 (1996) CPJ 34, has held that after taking over possession the complainant cannot be allowed to repudiate the part of the contract and come forward with the allegation that there was deficiency in delivery of possession.
14. Applying the ratio of the abovementioned judgement in the case under consideration, this Commission would lack the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear this case.
15. Hence on this account also the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
16. Hence even on merit no case made out by the complainant for the relief.
We accordingly dismiss the complaint both on merits, limitation and jurisdiction.
17. We order accordingly.
18. Copy of this order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost, as contemplated under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Consumer Protection Regulations 2015.
File be consigned to records.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA) (O.P.GUPTA) MEMBER MEMBER(JUDICIAL)