The present Appeal, under Section ­­­51(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Appellant (hereinafter referred as “the Complainant”) against the order dated 02.05.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.409 of 2018 of the Appellant.  The said Complaint was dismissed by the State Commission.

2.      The Complaint was filed for the damages from the Opposite Party, ie., the DDA.  Following prayers were made in the Complaint:

Prayer

            The complainant therefore prays for:

1. Financial compensation of ₹30,64,585/- (₹ Thirty Four Lacs, Sixty Four Thousand and Five Hundred and Eighty Five only) may be granted as per the calculation given below.

II.          Strict remedial measures to be put in place so that DDA is prevented from meting out such treatment to prospective consumers in future.

III.         Plead in the larger interest to take away the responsibility of house construction from DDA.  This part should be given to the corporate entities of good repute and credibility through competitive hiding to protect consumer’s long terms interest.

IV.        Such orders passed as the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.”

3.      The State Commission after perusing the file and the case laws relied on, has held as under: 

“ 2.       Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the complaint are these.

  3.       The complainant in the fond hope of having a house of his own had registered himself for a category III flat in fifth self financing scheme of the OP vide Challan No: 55035 dated 14.08.1982 and submitted the application form, paying Rs. 15,000/- as the registration fee. Mode of payment as per the Brochure issued was that a person on the allotment of the flat would make the payment as under:

a.          25% (including the amount paid as registration deposit) an initial deposit on allotment

b.         20% after 6 months

c.          25% after next six months

d.         20% after next six months

e.          10% when required to take over possession

   4.         As per Clause 10 of the Brochure the amount deposited with the registration will carry an interest of 7 % p.a. and no interest would be payable on the payment made towards the cost of the flat till securing the possession of the flat. It was also clearly envisaged that interest @ 7% will be payable on the amount deposited with the registration for the period beyond two and a half years till the date of issue of the possession letter. Finally the cost of the flat indicated in the brochure would be provisional and liable to revision.

   5.      The specific gravaman of the complainant is that the OP was quick in asking for the instalments with stipulation that the delay in making payment would be coupled with penal interest but they are silent about the interest or compensation for the delay done by them in handing over possession of the flat. In the case of the complainant the final payment was made on 29.04.1994 but the possession of the flat was handed over on 08.11.1994. Worse happened thereafter when despite depositing the requisite amount, the execution of the conveyance deed was delayed for almost two years on one pretext or the other. Infact on one occasion the officials of the OP had lost his file also. This caused avoidable mental agony to him and besides with the delay done, the circle rate for that area having been revised, he had to pay more for getting the conveyance deed executed. For these reasons the complainant has prayed for the compensation of about Rs.50 Lakhs in this complaint.

   6.      This complaint was listed before us for admission hearing on 24.04.2018 when the complainant present in person advanced his arguments. We have perused the records of the case and carefully considered the issues involved.

   7.      In the first instance we may examine whether the possession of the flat having been taken over on 08.11.1994 (page 84 of the complaint), and conveyance deed having been executed on 26.08.2016 (page no 111 of the complaint), the complainant is a Consumer. It is a trite law that once possession has been taken over, one is no longer a consumer. This has been held in the matter of Smita Roy versus Excel Construction as reported in II [2012] CPJ 204 and in the matter of Harpal Arya versus Housing Board Haryana as reported in II [2016] CPJ 36. The ratio in both the cases is that one does not remain consumer after taking over possession.

   8.      In this view of the matter the complainant having taken over possession is no longer a Consumer in which case he would not be entitled to raise a consumer dispute.

    9.     There is another aspect to look into the matter. Cost of the flat even after its increase as pointed by the complainant is Rs.Five Lakhs (approximately) but the compensation claimed is Rs. 50 Lakhs. This has been exaggerated. This is highly inappropriate. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Harakrishna Biswas (Dr) versus H.D. Nautiyal as reported in IV [2014] CPJ 33 (NC) is pleased to hold as under:

“Compensation claimed Rs.12 crores. Petitioner seeking highly dis- proportionate and inflated compensation qua allegation of deficiency in service against OPs. Claim inflated with a view to bring the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. This conduct amounts to abuse of process of law. Complaint being devoid of cause of action, is rejected.

10.        It has been held by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the following cases that

              exaggerated value can be checked at the initial stage.

a) CC-135/2011 ------ Ramesh Kumar versus Goyal Eye Institute decided on      30.03.2012.

b) FA-95/2001 ------ Anil Kumar Jain versus DDA decided on 22.02.2007.

c) CC-506/2015 ---- Vikas Singh versus BMW India decided on 25.08.2015.

11.        On this account also the complaint is not maintainable.

12.        Ordered accordingly. A copy of this order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. File be consigned to records.”

4.      It is argued on behalf of the Complainant that the impugned order is illegal and he is entitled for the compensation for the delay.  It is submitted that he is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.

5.      I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the file.

6.      The admitted facts of the case are that the Complainant had booked a flat with DDA vide challan no.55035 dated 14.08.1982.  The Complainant made the final payment of the consideration amount on 29.04.1994 and the possession of the flat was handed over to him on 18.11.1994.  It is not alleged in the Complaint that he had ever challenged the alleged delay in giving possession of the flat before any forum, before filing of the present Complaint.  The relief claimed that he is entitled for the interest on the payments made by him towards the flat, is hopelessly time barred.  His another contention is that the Conveyance Deed was not executed till 2016 and this has caused mental agony to him and he had to pay more money for the execution of the Conveyance Deed and has claimed compensation on this count as well.  He has calculated the compensation to the tune of Rs.50 Lakhs, details of which have been mentioned by him in the prayer clauses are reproduced as above.

7.      The Complainant had the right to get the Conveyance Deed executed immediately after taking the possession.  He kept on waiting till 2016 when it was finally executed.  He has not alleged in the Complaint that he had invoked any jurisdiction of any forum before filing the present Complaint.  Even otherwise, the present Complaint had been filed even after the period of two years from the date of the execution of the Conveyance Deed.  His Complaint on this count is also time barred and no explanation has been offered.  He remained sleeping over his right for the execution of the Conveyance Deed for almost 24 years.  The claim of Rs.50 Lakhs as compensation is highly exaggerated, especially when the cost of the flat is only about Rs.5 Lakhs.  The Complainant has claimed the damages for delay in possession for the period from 1994 to 2004, which relief cannot be granted because he himself is to be blamed for delay in filing his Complaint.  From the very nature of the Complaint, it is obvious that it is a mischievous complaint and the Complainant has not presented any bonafide claim.  He seems to have been indulging in luxurious litigations.  The fact that he has vide this Complaint, indulged himself into a frivolous litigation is obvious from the very nature of relief claimed by him.  He has claimed direction that “Strict remedial measures to be put in place so that DDA is prevented from meting out such treatment to prospective consumers in future” and also the direction that “Plead in the larger interest to take away the responsibility of house construction from DDA.  This part should be given to the corporate entities of good repute and credibility through competitive hiding to protect consumer’s long terms interest.”

8.      The State Commission does not possess the jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act to entertain these prayers.  The State Commission has rightly held that the Complaint was highly belated and that the Complainant seizes to be a consumer in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. 

9.      In view of the above, it is apparent that the order of the State Commission does not suffer with any illegality or infirmity.  The present Appeal has no force.  The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.