ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member—The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) against the Opposite Parties seeking to direct the OPs:

A. To hold and declare that the Opposite Parties to be guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986;

B. To direct the Opposite Parties to execute and register the Agreement for Sale in respect of the Flat No. 3005 on the 30 floor admeasuring carpet area 1304 sq. ft. and/or 2085 sq. ft. built-up area in “Tower-1”, alongwith two car parking in the Project “AURIS SERENITY” on plot of land situated at Guriya Pada, Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064, Mumbai Suburban District, for total consideration of Rs.3,60,11,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Sixty Lakhs and Eleven Thousand Only) inclusive of taxes and to hand over the physical, peaceful and legal possession of the said Flat No. 3005 within the time period of two years alongwith Occupation Certificate and/or Building Completion Certificate of Flat No. 3005.

Or in Alternative

To direct the Opposite Parties to refund the sum of Rs.18,76,173/- to the Complainant along with interest of 24% on Rs.18,76,173/- from the date of payment till realization.

C. To direct the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the compensation for the delay, stress, inconvenience, harassment, mental agony, etc. suffered by the Complainant;

D. To direct the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the legal and incidental expenses incurred by the Complainant;

E. For such other and further relief as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the above numbered complaint.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant are that he booked Flat No. 3005 in “Tower-1” of the “Auris Serenity” project in Malad (West), Mumbai, offered by the Opposite Parties - OP (Builders/ Developers). The flat measured 1304 Sq Ft carpet area (2085 Sq Ft built-up area) and included two car parking spaces. The total consideration was Rs.3,60,11,000. The complainant was enticed by the project’s brochures, advertisements, and assurances paid Rs.5,00,000 via cheque on 11.07.2015 and additional payments totalling Rs.18,00,550, making up 5% of the total consideration. Builders assured a bank loan covering 90% of the flat’s cost after receiving the initial 5% payment. Despite fulfilling payment obligations, the OPs failed to arrange for the promised loan. The builders failed to enter into a registered Agreement for Sale as required under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963, despite receiving substantial payments. Demand letters were sent to the complainant for further payments while evading compliance with loan arrangements and other statutory duties. On 25.03.2016, the OPs issued a Notice for Cancellation demanding Rs.2,59,38,217, including interest and service tax, to be paid within 15 days. The complainant secured a housing loan from DHFL independently and requested an Architect’s Certificate from the builders for loan disbursement. The OPs failed to issue the necessary certificate and comply with their contractual obligations. He sent a legal notice on 22.08.2016, requesting execution of the Agreement for Sale and other statutory compliances. The OPs ignored this notice. Being aggrieved, he filed this Consumer Complaint seeking the Commission’s intervention for above said reliefs.

3. Upon notice, the complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing their Written Statement and raising, inter-alia, the preliminary issues that; the Complainant has unnecessarily impleaded the entire Board of Directors (OP Nos. 2-8) and other individuals, despite no allegations being made against them in a personal capacity. The directors and officers of a company cannot be held personally liable for the obligations of