IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI NC/CC/255/2013 WITH NC/IA/6350/2023, 4897 & 8596/2025 (Placing additional documents, Condonation of delay and Condonation of delay)

Sagar Avenue-I CHS Ltd.

Regd. No. MUM/W-H-E/HSG (TC)/14683/2009-10 dt. 1/2/2010 Patuck Road, Kolekalyan Dhobighat, Vakola Bridge Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 055 .......Complainant Versus

1) M/s. Sagar Shopping Developers ...Opposite Party no.1

2) Mr. Malik K. Meredia Partner in M/s. Sagar Shopping Developers ...Opposite Party no.2

3) Mr. Mohsin K. Meredia Partner in M/s. Sagar Shopping Developers ....Opposite Party no.3 Opposite Parties ho. 1 to 3 having their office at:

Site Office, Sagar Avenue-II, Annex Building, Patuck Road, Vakola, Dhobighat Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400055.

And

106, Sofiya Zober Road, Near Nagpada Police Station Mumbai 400008 And Hotel Heritage Santa Savta Mali Road, Byculla (E), Mumbai 400027.

4) OP No.4 is deleted from the array of parties vide Order dated. 24/11/2014

5) The Assistant Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai "H" East, BMC Office, Prabhat Colony Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400 055. ...Opposite Party no.5

6) The Executive Engineer, Building Proposals (WS)

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Building & Proposals (Western Suburbs)

H/East Ward, Mahapalika office, R.K. Patkar Marg, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER Appearance at the time of arguments:

For the Complainant : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate For the Opp. Parties No. 1-3 : Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, Advocate Mr. Zulfiqar Zariwala, Advocate Ms. Anshula Grover, Advocate Mr. Apoorv Khatar, Advocate Mr. Ayushman Aggarwal, Advocate Mr. Lenpitnang Sihlion, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 4 : Deleted vide order dated 24.11.2014 For the Opposite Parties No. 5 & 6: Mr. S. Sukumaran, Advocate Pronounced on: 30^th September 2025

ORDER

JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint raises allegations of deficiency in service regarding flat buyers of the complainant society pointing out the persisting defects and the shortcomings in the constructions and further non-availability of an occupancy certificate that continue to persist even today and, therefore, the complaint has been filed contending that the opposite parties having failed to carry out their contractual and statutory obligations, the relief prayed for deserves to be allowed.

2. There are approximately 17 reliefs prayed for violating contractual and statutory obligations by the OP No. 1 to 3 which according to the complainant society remain unfulfilled. Paragraph 6 of the complaint broadly details the allegations and the consequences faced by the complainant on being charged double the rate of water charges by the Municipal Corporation. The non- availability of occupancy certificate, the non-construction of an external compound wall, absence of club and other facilities have also been pleaded with the contention that all these promises are borne out from a perusal of the brochure, the agreement as well as the communications on record.

3. It is further submitted that the opposite parties charged a hefty amount for the registration and formation of the society which was also not done as such charges which have been levied on that count deserve to be refunded.

4. The complaint was instituted on 16.08.2013. Notices were issued and the opposite parties have come up raising objections that the complaint is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 24(A), as also the fact of filing of previous complaints by 14 complainants of the same Society regarding 8 flats before the District Consumer Forum, Mumbai being CC No. 592 to 599 of 2009 decided on 28.02.2011. The contention is that the issues raised herein have already been contested and orders passed and as such the joining of such of the complainants and the filing of a complaint through the Society cannot be permitted on the principles of res judicata and constructi