Consumer developers are liable for failure to deliver possession within stipulated timelines and misleading advertisements constitute unfair trade practices.

JUDGMENT

(29-07-2025)

Per: Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member

1. The Complainants has filed the present Consumer Complaint under Section 47 read with Section 2 (6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 , seeking reliefs against the Opposite Parties for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The Opposite Party No. 1 is the Promoter and Opposite Party No. 2 is the absolute Land owner and both are engaged in the business of construction & development of land. The opposite party no.3 is the Real Estate Agent duly Registered under RERA website Page ALTA MONTE —TOWER B.

2. The case of Complainants in short is that the complainants are residents of Mumbai, were desirous having a flat in Mumbai received a E mail from Opposite party no.3 reffering themselves as agents for the project ALTA MONTE after discussion and perusing the brochure the complainants booked a residential flat—Flat No. 1103 , on the 11th floor of Wing “B’, in the project “Omkar Alta Monte”, situated at Shantaram Talao ,Siddheshwar Nagar, Konkanipada , Malad (East), Mumbai being developed by the Opposite Parties, namely the Promoter and the Landowner. The agreed consideration for the said flat was Rs.1,67,30,500/-, out of which the Complainants had paid Rs.1,42,25,627/- (inclusive of taxes), through a combination of self-funding and home loan facilities. being nearly 80% of the total flat price. Despite repeated requests, the Opposite Parties failed to execute the Agreement for Sale and deliver possession within the stipulated time. The Complainants were instead issued multiple draft Allotment Letters, unilaterally extending the date of possession ,as per the verbal promise assurance of opposite party no.1 & 2 March 2018 was the date of possession than it got extended to March 2019 and thereafter to December 2020.

3. It is the grievance of the Complainants that such extensions were unilateral, made without consent, and amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Despite assurances, advertisements, brochures, and repeated follow-ups, the Opposite parties failed to deliver possession even after the lapse of several years. As of the date of filing the complaint, no possession or Occupancy Certificate has been handed over. The Complainants further alleged that the Opposite Parties changed the project’s construction contractor from Larsen & Toubro (L&T) to a local contractor, compromising the quality of construction. The RCC structure of the project has been left exposed for years, raising structural safety concerns. It is further contended that False promises, evasive communications, and unilateral changes in RERA possession timelines reflect unfair trade practices. Further the Opposite Parties updated the Maha RERA website with revised possession dates till December 2020, without buyer consent. Also F the Architect’s certifications reveal partial construction contrary to full slab-wise demand notices raised by the Opposite parties. The Complainant served a legal notice dated 16.03.2021, to Opposite parties. Though duly received by the Opposite Parties they failed to reply the said notice. Hence, the present complaint was filed seeking possession of the flat with amenities or, alternatively, an equivalent flat, together with interest @18% p.a., Rs.20,00,000/- towards mental agony, and Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost.

4. The Complaint was admitted, Notice was issued to the Opposite Parties. Though opposite Parties were duly served with notice of the complaint. However, despite service, Opposite Party Nos. 1 , 2 & 3 failed to file their Written Version within the statutory period prescribed