JUDGMENT

Dr. Satish A. Munde, Member.—

This is one of the group matter:

The Complainant has filed this complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The gist of the complaint is as under:-

2. The Opposite Party is a Private Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Opposite Party in the year 2010 had started to advertise their project ‘Hex City’ situated at Survey Number 55/5(A)1, 55/5(A)2, 55+56(2)(2), 56+57(3), 61/3A, 61/3B, 65/1(2), 65/1(3), 66/3 situated at village Rohinjan, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The complainant was looking for residential apartment for his own use in the year 2012. At that time, he came to across advertisement given by the Opposite Party. Thereafter, the complainant visited to the office of the Opposite Party. At that time, the Opposite Party represented that the Opposite Party is owner of the land bearing survey number 55/5(A)1, 55/5(A)2, 55+56(2)(2), 56+57(3), 61/3A, 61/3B, 65/1(2), 65/1(3), 66/3, situated at village Rohinjan, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. It was also represented that the Opposite Party has all rights, title, interest to develop the land and to construct the flat as per the plan passed by the competent authority and to sell the flat to prospective buyers. The Opposite Party also represented that the Opposite Party is constructing residential Complex on the said land and Opposite Party has already obtained all permission to construct residential complex from appropriate authorities. The complainant booked the flat in the project of the Opposite Party and paid Rs.28,52,996/- to the Opposite Party towards the booking amount. The Opposite Party demanded money for confirmation of booking and reserve the Flat No. 0606, 6th floor, area admeasuring 652 sq.ft in the building known as TOPAZ in proposed project known ‘Hex City’. The Opposite Party has executed registered agreement for sale of flat dated 15/05/2013. The complainant has paid agreed consideration from time to time, on demand of the Opposite Party and the complainant has paid entire consideration Amount. Till date the Opposite Party has failed to complete the construction of the project and to give the possession of the flat within agreed time, whereby the Opposite Party has done the deficiency in service and hence the complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency service and unfair trade practice under section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has demanded possession of the flat. The complainants have prayed for interest @21% p.a. on money received by the opposite party. The complainants have prayed for refund of money for the area reduced by the opposite party as per today’s fair market value and not to charge extra other / development charges. The complainants have prayed for all the amenities including ample parking space as per brochure and refund extra charges with 18% interest. The complainants have prayed for third party structure Engineer report of building stability. The complainants have prayed for compensation for mental and physical agony and costs of litigation.

3. The complaint was admitted and notice was issue to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party appeared and filed written version and denied all the allegations made in the complaint. The Opposite Party has contended that the complainant has purposely not made MMRDA as a party to the present complaint and hence on the ground of mis-joiner, the complaint may be dismissed. The Opposite Party has contended that this was a first kind of initiative taken by GOM and MMRDA. Hence, rules and regulations were not set. The Opposite Party has further contended that the MMRDA had requested the Government to carry out required modifications in Development Control Regulations and to appoint MMRDA as project implementing agency for all rental housing projects undertaken in Mumbai Metropolitan region by constructing or procuring constructed self-contained dwelling