Builders must not impose unfair charges or conditions that undermine consumer rights, ensuring timely possession and compliance with agreements.

1. These three Consumer Complaints have been filed by Dr. Vijay Purushottam Kale, Dr. Purushottam Gopalrao Kale and Dr. Satishchandra Purushottam Kale (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Complainants") under S.21(a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act") against M/s. Hetali Enterprises, Builders & Developers (Opposite Party No. 1) and Andheri Nav Bahar CHS (Opposite Party No. 2 / the Society) at Vile Parle, seeking compensation towards the alleged deficiency, unfair trade practice and delayed possession of their flats under redevelopment plan.

2. Since the facts of the cases and the Opposite Parties are same, these Complaints are being disposed of by this common Order.

3. The Complainants were residing at "Nav Bahar" building in Vile Parle. Their Society named Andheri Nav Bahar Co - op Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as the "Opposite Party No. 2) invited bids from various builders / developers to entrust the redevelopment work (demolition and new construction) of the existing buildings 'Nav Bahar' at Lallubhai Park Road Extension, Vile Parle West, Mumbai. M/s. Hetali Enterprises, Builders and Developers (hereinafter referred to as the 'Opposite Party No. 1 / Builder Co.') was entrusted the redevelopment work. On 30.7.2011, a redevelopment agreement was registered with the appropriate authority as varied by a supplemental agreement dated 5.12.2012 between both the Opposite Parties. Under the said agreement, Opposite Party No. 1 had agreed to provide new flats to the members of the Society - Opposite Party No. 2 in the new building with additional 28% carpet area. The Complainants entered into tripartite agreement on 24.12.2012 and in terms of the agreement, the Complainants were given an offer to purchase additional area at predetermined rates and the possession was to be offered within 24 months of the License date i.e. on or before 31.12.2014 with a grace period of 3 months.
The details, as agreed, are reproduced in the chart below:
As per the tripartite agreement: (Original area surrendered by the Complainants, their entitlement of carpet area considering additional 28% agreed to be allotted to them, the additional concessional area purchased by them and the agreed date of possession)

4. It was submitted that as per Clause 19 of the Agreement, the area of the flat was to be physically measured and certified jointly by the Society's Architect and the Developer's Architect and in case there is any shortfall in the area, it was to be compensated @Rs. 24,650 per sq. ft.

5. The Opposite Party No. 1, vide letter dated 6.1.2015, informed the Complainants that they were liable to pay certain amount towards enhanced premium for deficiency in open space. The details of the amounts, so demanded from the Complainants, are as under:

In response thereto, the Complainants sent a protest letter dated 7.2.2015 to Opposite Party No. 1 and asked the reason for deduction of said amount from their payment. However, there was no clarification from the Opposite Party No. 1, but it deducted amounts (as mentioned above) from the charges payable to the Complainants towards alternate accommodation.

6. The Complainants further contended that they were informed through Opposite Party No. 2, about for the inspection the flats in new building. On 17.12.2015, the Complainants along with the Architect Patwardhan & Associates inspected the flats and noticed shortage in the carpet area of all the three fl