JUDGMENT

Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member.—The complainants, Mr. Vir Bhan Sharma and Miss Disha Sharma, have filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Shri Dhulchand Shankar Naik, proprietor of M/s. Ashtavinayak Developers, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices in relation to the purchase of Flat No. 704 in Sai Regency Building, Ulwe Node, Navi Mumbai.

2. The complainants state that they are consumers as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and had entered into a registered agreement with the Opposite Party on 30/06/2017 for purchasing the said flat for a total consideration of Rs.54,35,300/-. In addition to this amount, the Opposite Party extorted Rs.31,500/- towards monthly maintenance for 12 months in advance and Rs.25,000/- towards society registration expenses.

3. The possession of the flat was handed over to the complainants on 12/08/2017, and they shifted to the flat on 17/10/2017. Upon shifting, they discovered several defects and deficiencies in the flat, such as leakage and seepage from the west side wall and ceiling of the master bedroom, improper fitting of water taps, non-functioning of flush tanks, and issues with the lift, which remained non-functional for several days. Despite multiple complaints and follow-ups, the Opposite Party failed to rectify these issues, causing great inconvenience and mental agony to the complainants. The complainants further stated that the Opposite Party did not form the cooperative society as promised and neglected to pay the water and electricity bills, resulting in disconnection of these services for extended periods.

4. The complainants submitted several letters to the Opposite Party detailing the issues faced and requesting immediate rectification of the defects in the flat and building. On 17/11/2017, a letter was personally delivered to the Opposite Party’s office assistant, Mrs. Rashmi Kamle, who acknowledged the issues but no substantial action was taken. The complainants again wrote a letter on 15/06/2018, sent through registered post, which was returned unclaimed. The complainants allege that despite their efforts, the Opposite Party did not address their grievances, forcing them to undertake repairs at their own expense.

5. The complainants claim to have spent Rs.26,500/- on repainting the flat after the first rainy season due to the severe leakage and Rs.1,00,000/- on repairing wardrobes, furniture, and other materials damaged due to the seepage. They also allege that the mental agony and inconvenience suffered due to the continuous negligence of the Opposite Party have been immense. The complainants have thus sought a total compensation of Rs.3,66,500/- towards the expenses incurred, mental agony, and litigation costs.

6. The complaint was admitted on 19/12/2019, and notices were issued to the Opposite Party. Despite several opportunities, the Opposite Party did not appear before the Commission, prompting the complainants to move an application for substitute service on 14/02/2020. The application was allowed, and service affidavits, along with copies of newspaper publications, were filed on 26/10/2021. The matter was then adjourned to 26/10/2021 for passing orders against the Opposite Party. On 17/12/2021, the complainant filed an affidavit of evidence, detailing the grievances and the Opposite Party’s failure to address them. Subsequently, on 20/10/2023, an order to proceed ex-parte against the Opposite Party was passed. However, on 20/11/2023, the matter was inadvertently recorded as adjourned for hearing on admission, which was later rectified in the next roznama on 27/02/2024. On this date, the complainants filed written notes of arguments and requested to consider the written arguments in lieu of oral arguments and it was adjourned for judgment.

7. Considering the complaint, evidence affidavit of complainants, written notes of argument of complainants and documents issues that arise for de