New Delhi: The apex consumer commission has dismissed a man’s plea for compensation from a construction firm for delay in handing over possession of a flat, saying he did not fall within the purview of ‘consumer’ as he had booked six flats and sold five out of them and generated profit.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided by Justice K S Chaudhari, passed the order on a revision petition filed by Magrath Property Developer against an order passed by Karnataka state commission.
The state commission had upheld the order of a district consumer forum by which the firm was asked to pay Rs 8,86,347 as interest, Rs 1 lakh as compensation and Rs 10,000 as cost to Bangalore resident A S Veeranna.
“There is nothing on record that complainant (Veeranna) booked six flats to accommodate all his family members and state commission without any basis assumed that flats were booked for his family members.
“Had it been so, he would not have sold five flats and generated profit. But, it is admitted fact that complainant booked six flats, so, he does not fall within the purview of ‘consumer’,” the NCDRC said.
It said the district forum committed error in allowing the complaint and state commission further committed error in dismissing the appeal of the firm. The NCDRC noted that Veeranna had not disclosed the fact in his complaint that he had booked six flats.
In his complaint filed before the forum, Veeranna had told that he had booked a flat in a project floated by construction firm and on August 8, 2005,firm promised to deliver possession within 36 months.
However, the firm failed to obtain occupancy certificate and deliver possession, though Veeranna had paid Rs 74,60,834 and was still willing to pay remaining amount, he said. Thereafter, alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, Veeranna filed complaint before District Forum.
The firm, however, had contested the claim and submitted before the forum that Veeranna had purchased six apartments in the project and had already sold five apartments, adding that his intention was to get more profit and he did not fall within the purview of ‘consumer’.
The forum, after hearing both the parties, had allowed Veeranna’s complaint.
