The failure to execute a sale agreement and impose undisclosed additional charges constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practices under consumer protection law.

JUDGMENT

(13-05-2025)

Per: Hon’ble Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member

1. The complainant, Mr. Deepak Motiram Chhabria, has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of Opposite Parties No. 1 to 4 in relation to a flat booked in their residential project originally known as “Orchid Ozone” (later renamed as “DB Ozone”), situated at Mira Road (East), District Thane. Opposite Party No. 1, M/s. Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd., is the developer and promoter of the said project. Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 are Directors of Opposite Party No. 1, actively involved in the execution and management of the project. Opposite Party No. 4 was functioning as the Company Secretary of Opposite Party No. 1 at the relevant time.

2. The complainant resides and works in Bangkok and has authorised Mr. Pravin J. Yadav to represent him before this Commission through a duly executed Special Power of Attorney dated 08/06/2017.

3. The complainant stated that being attracted by the Opposite Parties’ representation, brochures, and verbal assurance of timely possession and world-class amenities, he booked Flat No. 1601 on the 16th Floor of Building No. 1 in the said project on 02/01/2010. 4. The total consideration for the flat, inclusive of car parking, was ₹36,26,184/-, of which the complainant initially paid ₹6,95,236/, and thereafter made subsequent payments from time to time. By February 2016, the complainant had paid a total amount of ₹34,42,238/-, covering nearly 95% of the total price. An allotment letter was issued on the same date confirming the said booking.

5. The complainant has alleged that despite having received almost the entire consideration amount, the Opposite Parties failed to execute and register the Agreement for Sale. Only after continuous follow-up, in 2016, the Opposite Parties issued a draft agreement which, to the complainant’s shock, included additional charges amounting to ₹7,83,000/- under the heads of “Development Charges” and “Infrastructure Costs” as per Clause 34 of the draft.

6. The complainant alleged that these charges were never disclosed at the time of booking and were arbitrary in nature. He pointed out that his brother, Mr. Rajesh M. Chhabria, had also booked a similar flat—Flat No. 1602, situated on the same 16th floor of Building No. 1 in the same project—on the same date as the complainant.

7. It is further alleged that in his brother’s case, a registered agreement was executed by the Opposite Parties wherein the “Development Charges” and “Infrastructure Costs” were clearly specified as ₹13,120/- and ₹21,950/- respectively. In contrast, the draft agreement issued to the complainant in 2016 sought to impose a lump sum of ₹7,83,000/- under similar heads without any justification or cost breakup. The complainant submitted that this discrepancy indicated an unfair and discriminatory practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

8. Upon raising objections to these charges, the complainant received no satisfactory explanation or relief from the Opposite Parties. Despite issuance of a legal notice dated 15/11/2016 demanding execution of the agreement and handing over of lawful possession, the Opposite Parties failed to comply. Instead, an email dated 03/02/2017 was issued offering possession without obtaining the requisite Occupation Certificate (OC). The complainant contends that such an offer is contrary to law and amounts to denial of statutory and contr