NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/376/2019 (Against the Order dated 21st December 2018 in Complaint 601/2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra)

DILAWAR NANSEY PRESENT ADDRESS - CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROYAL PALMS (INDIA ) PVT LTD, SURVEY NO 169, NEAR UNIT NO 26, AAREY MILK COLONY GOREGAON (E) , MUMBAI

400 065 .......Appellant(s)

Versus KAPILDEO PRASAD AMBASTHA PRESENT ADDRESS - B-1703, CENTRIO, P L LOKHANDE MARG, GAUTAM NAGAR, GOVANDI, , MUMBAI 400043 , MAHARASHTRA , .......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. SADHNA SHANKER , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

MR. ANAND PRAKASH, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

IN PERSON (THROUGH VC)

DATED: 18/11/2025

ORDER

JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Order dated 21.12.2018 in Consumer Complaint No. 601 of 2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra vide which, the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Opposite Party was partly allowed with the following directions –

“(14) In view of answer to point nos.(i) to (vii) complaint deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, we pass the following order:

ORDER (i) Complaint is partly allowed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) payable by the opponent to the complainant.

(ii) Opponent is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. from August, 2015 till the date of obtaining occupancy certificate.

(iii) Opponent is directed to pay to the complainant interest on amount of Rs.42,51,000/- @9% per annum from 1st July, 2012 till 8th May, 2015 for delayed possession of flat.

(iv) Opponent is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant.

(v) Opponent is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.1,33,424/- (Rupees One Lac Thirty Three Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Four only)

(vi) The opponent shall pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within two months from the date of this order, failing which the aforesaid amounts shall carry interest @12% per annum.”

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant booked a 2BHK Flat bearing No. 1208 on the 12th Floor in “Diamond Isle III Apartment” constructed by the Opposite Party/Appellant for a total consideration of Rs. 42,51,000/- by paying a booking amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on

01.08.2010, followed by a further sum of Rs. 2,51,000/- on 31.08.2010. As per the offer, the Flat had a carpet area of 519.36 sq. ft. and a built-up area of 785 sq. ft. However, the Agreement for Sale executed on 08.11.2010 reflected a reduced built-up area of 623.23 sq. ft., affecting maintenance and other charges linked to the built-up area. The Agreement stipulated the possession date as 30.06.2012. The Complainant was sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.

27,40,000/- by SBI on 01.01.2011 and continued to make payments as demanded, totaling Rs.

46,46,283/- by 26.08.2014. This sum included Rs. 1,13,623/- as Service Tax, Rs. 42,510/- as VAT, and Rs. 14,000/- towards legal charges, all outside the scope of the Agreement. Additional payments included stamp duty of Rs. 1,95,150/- and registration fees of Rs. 30,000/-. On 05.07.2014, the Builder intimated the Complainant that the building construction had been completed and sought the final instalment of Rs. 4,36,134/- citing that the Occupation Certificate (OC) had been applied for and would be received within six weeks. Relying on this representation, the Complainant secured disbursement of the said amount from SBI on

26.08.2014.

3. Subsequently, the Builder sought to hand over possession without the Occupation Certificate (OC), demanding an additional Rs. 2,40,240/- through an Advocate’s Notice. Under coercion, the Complainant paid the said amount on 18.01.2015, receiving a No-Dues certif