JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) IA/11691/2018 (For directions) The documents mentioned in the application are taken on record. The application stands disposed of. CC/1039/2016 The complainants booked a residential flat with the OP in a project namely ‘The Palm Terraces’, which the OP was to develop in Sector-66 of Gurgaon. Unit No.PTF-1E-0102 was allotted to the complainants for a basic sale price of Rs.6250/- in addition to EDC @ Rs.30/- per sq. ft., IDC @ Rs.34/- per sq. ft., PLC, wherever applicable, @ Rs.700/- per sq. ft. and use of two open car parkings for an aggregate of Rs.5 lacs. As per clause 14(a) of the Buyers Agreement on 05.04.2011, in respect of the aforesaid unit, the possession was to be delivered within 30 months from the commencement of the construction, the said unit being within ground floor + four floors, though a grace period of three months was also available to the OP. 2. Admittedly, the construction had commenced on 11.06.2012. The possession therefore, ought to have been delivered by 11.03.2015 even after giving benefit of the grace period of 3 months to the OP. Since the possession was not offered to him within 11.03.2015, the complainants approached this Commission by way of this Consumer Complaint. 3. The complaint has been resisted by the OP but the possession of allotted unit was offered to the complainants on 16.03.2017 and has been delivered on 22.06.2017. The only issue involved in this case now is as to whether the complainants are entitled to any compensation and if so, to what extent the delivery of possession of the allotted unit to them. 4. The OP has not been able to give any valid justification for the delay in offering possession of the allotted flat to the complainants. 5. The learned counsel for the OP states that not only the possession of the allotted unit has been taken by the complainants, in due satisfaction of all the liabilities and obligations of the OP, as enumerated in the allotment letter/agreement, even the Sale Deed has been executed in their favour on 03.08.2017, and therefore the claim for the compensation does not survive any more. This is also his contention that once the Sale Deed is executed in the favour of the complainants, they cease to be a consumers of the OP as defined in Section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection, ownership in the unit having been transferred to the complainants. 6. The unit hand over letter relied upon by the learned counsel for the OP in support of his submissions, that the complainants having taken possession of the allotted unit without any demur and protest and having then also got the Sale Deed executed in their favour without any protest, they are not entitled to any compensation, reads as under: The Allottee, hereby, certifies that he/she has taken over the peaceful and vacant physical possession of the aforesaid Unit after fully satisfying himself/herself with regard to its measurements, location, dimension and development etc. and hereafter the Allottee has no claim of any nature whatsoever against the Company with regard to the size, dimension, area, location and legal status of the aforesaid Home. Upon acceptance of possession, the liabilities and obligations of the Company as enumerated in the allotment letter/agreement executed in favour of the Allottee stand satisfied. 7. It would thus be seen that the complainants while taking possession in terms of the above referred printed hand over letter of the OP, can, at best, be said to have discharged the OP of its liabilities and obligations as enumerated in the agreement. However, this hand over letter, in my opinion, does not come in the way of the complainants seeking compensation from this Commission under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act for the delay in delivery of possession. The said delay amounting to a deficiency in the services offered by the OP to the complainants. The right to seek compensation for the deficiency in the service was never given up by the complainants. Moreover, the Consumer Complaint was also pending before this Commission at the time the unit was handed over to the complainants. Therefore, the complainants, in my view, cannot be said to have relinquished their legal right to claim compensation from the OP merely because the basis of the unit has been taken by them in terms of printed hand over letter and the Sale Deed has also been got executed by them in their favour. 8. I also find no merit in the contention that the complainants cease to be consumers of the OP on the Sale Deed being executed in their favour. In terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, a consumer is a person who hires or avails the services for a consideration. ‘Housing’, being a service, as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, the complainants became consumers of the OP on their entering into a transaction with the OP where-under the OP was to construct a residential flat and sell it to the complainants. The relationship of consumer and service provider does not come to an end on execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the complainants. In any case, the Sale Deed has been executed after this complaint had been instituted. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the OP has no legal basis. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaint is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The OP shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum to the complainants for the period from 12.03.2015 to 16.03.2017. The compensation if any, already credited in the account of the complainants, shall be deducted while complying with this direction. (ii) The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainants. (iii) The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today. | 
