JUDGMENT

Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member.—This consumer complaint has been filed by Ms. Cynthia Lawrence Vaz, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, against M/s T3 Urban Developers Ltd. and its Chairman & Managing Director, Mr. Valarian Paul Lobo, hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking relief for deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, and compensation for mental agony, financial losses, and physical harassment caused due to the opposite parties’ failure to deliver possession of a residential flat as per the agreement.

2. The complainant has stated that she is a professional advocate residing at the aforementioned address. The complainant submitted that she booked Flat No. 104 in the project named ‘T3 Mallige,’ located at B.C. Road, District Mangalore, Karnataka, developed by the opposite parties. The total consideration for the flat was Rs.16,38,153/-. The complainant paid an initial booking amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 10th September 2010 through cheque and subsequently paid a sum of Rs.11,75,000/- in instalments till March 2011 as per the agreed schedule. The opposite parties issued a booking confirmation letter dated 7th October 2010, acknowledging the receipt of the said amount and confirming the booking of the flat.

3. The opposite parties published an advertisement in the local newspaper ‘Secular Citizen’ on 16th August 2010, assuring that the flat would be delivered with several amenities, including free stamp duty and registration charges, no service tax or VAT, free car parking space, and a modular kitchen with a burner and chimney. Based on these assurances, the complainant decided to purchase the flat and entered into an agreement with the opposite parties. The complainant submitted the original newspaper advertisement and the allotment letter as evidence in support of her claim.

4. The complainant further stated that the possession of the flat was promised to be delivered by March 2011 as per the terms of the agreement. However, despite several follow-ups through letters, emails, and personal visits to the project site, the opposite parties failed to complete the construction and hand over possession of the flat. When the complainant visited the project site in March 2011, she was dismayed to find that only the slab work was completed, and the flat was far from being ready for possession. The opposite parties, despite being aware of the complainant’s repeated requests and inquiries, continued to mislead her with false assurances about the project’s status.

5. The complainant submitted that on 21st December 2011, she received a letter from the opposite parties demanding the final balance payment of Rs.3,31,362/- along with Rs.1,34,540/- towards stamp duty and registration charges. This demand was made despite the assurance given in their advertisement that these charges would be borne by the opposite parties. The complainant refused to pay these additional amounts as they were contrary to the terms agreed upon. The complainant also narrated that she visited the project site again in May 2013 along with her brother, Mr. Vincent Lawrence Vaz, and her neighbour, Ms. Mansi Gangurde, only to find that the construction was still incomplete, with significant work yet to be completed.

6. Aggrieved by the false promises and the conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant sent several legal notices demanding possession of the flat and fulfilment of the commitments made in the advertisement and the agreement. On 16th June 2014, the com-plainant’s brother, Mr. Vincent Lawrence Vaz, lodged a police complaint against Mr. Valarian Paul Lobo under Section 506 of the IPC at Goregaon (West) Police Station, Mumbai, alleging criminal intimidation and harassment.

7. The complainant initially filed the complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Suburban District, Mumbai, on 24th July 2014, bearing Complaint No. 248 of 2014. The Distri