August 03, 2004 BEFORE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI APPEAL NO. AT006000000053394 0F 2021 Ajay S/o Vijaykumar Jain A-806, Ganpati Tower, Thakur Village, Kandivali (East), Mumbai ^- 400 101. ...Appellant - versus -

M/s. Lucina Land Development Limited

15th Floor, Tower - I, Indiabulls Finance Centre, 6L2-6L3, Elphinstone Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai - 400 012. ...Respondent Along with APPEAL NO. AT006000000053395 0F 2021 Ashish S/o Vijaykumar Jain A 805, Ganpati Tower, Thakur Village, Kandivali (East), Mumbai-400 101. ...Appellant -

versus -

M/s. Lucina Land Development Limited

15th Floor, Tower - I, Indiabulls Finance Centre, 6t2-6L3, Elphinstone Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai - 400 012. .,. Respondent Mr, Ajit Anekar, Advocate for Appellants, Mn Rashmin Khandekar a/w, Deep Madanl Advocates for CORAM : SHRI SHRIRAM R. JAGTAP (J) &

DR. K. SHMJI, MEMBER (A)

DATE : 5th August 2024 (THROUGH VrDEO CONFERENCE)

JUDGEMENT: t PER DR. K. SHIVAJI, MEMBER (A)]

Captioned appeals have been preferred under The Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, "the Act'), wherein, Appellants have challenged the two separate orders dated 30th July 202L passed by Maharashtra Real Estate the Regulatory Authority ('MahaRERA), whereby Complaint Nos.CC006000000 195941 and CC006000000 195945 came to be dismissed by concluding inter aliathat"...lf is ^prima facie evident from the declaration made by complainant whereby it is clear that the complainant is merely forum shopping,"

2. Respondent is the developer, who is constructing duly registered projects namely the" INDIABULLS GREEN-1 and GREENS-3" situated at Panvel, in Raigad district ("said Projects"). Appellants are flat purchasers in the said projects and are Complainants before MahaRERA For convenience, Appellants and Respondent will be addressed hereinafter as Complainants and Promoter respectively in their original status before Maha RERA, 3.

Captioned appeals having common backgrounds, are arising out of common facts and are also raising identical questions of law. Accordingly, with the consents of the parties, both the captioned appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by ^this common ^judgment as hereunder.

Brief backgrounds giving rise to the appeals: ^-

4 Complainants Case; ^-

a. Complainants have booked flat Nos. L6A-3207 and ^{20C-3504 for total} considerations of Rs.44,91,900/- and ^Rs.73,5 t,4001- ^{respectively.} Complainants have also paid Rs.9,26, t40l- and ^Rs.15,30 ,8691-

respectively towards ^{the part} consideration of ^the costs of the ^flats.

b. On account of alleged delay in construction of ^{the project, agreements} for sale were not executed between the ^parties and captioned complaints also came to be filed by Appellants before ^{MahaRERA on} Bth Febru ary 202t ^praying for several reliefs inter aliafor ^{refund of paid} amounts together with interest and compensation besides ^costs.

c. Promoter opposed the reliefs ^prayed for in the complaints ^{by appearing} before MahaRERA and raised, preliminary objections by submitting, complaints by dismissing these by concluding inter alia that captioned complaints are not maintainable in view of the ^{facts inter alia} that very same appellants have already filed two separate separate consumer complaints Nos. 1682 of 2019 and 1683 of 20L9 ^on December 20L9 under Consumer Possession Act 1986 ^{(say "CP} Act') before the Hon'ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission seeking similar reliefs.

d. After hearing the ^parties, MahaRERA disposed of the captioned

complainants are doing forum shopping. Therefore, complaints are not maintainable, vide two separate impugned orders dated 30th July 202L.

e. Aggrieved by these impugned orders, Complainants have preferred the instant appeals seeking inter aliato quash and set aside the impugned orders by allowing the captioned complai th

5.

Heard learned counsel for parties in extenso.

6.

Complainants have sought relief