M/S. BOUTIQUE INTERNATIONAL 202, PADMA PLACE, 86, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI Vs. UNITECH LIMITED THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, REAL ESTATE DIVISION, GROUND FLOOR, SIGNATURE TOWERS, SOUTH CITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 16,04,750.00 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. 1,62,63,675.00 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. 87.68.271.00 upto 24.9.2009 along with 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.