STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No. RBT/CC/2024/68 Mr. Jitendra Bajranglal Sharma Aged:- 62 years, Occ.-Chart. Accountant Resident of B-101, Hari Bldg., Shri Shivshakti CHS Ltd, Santoshi Mata Mandir Rd., Vaishet Pada, Kurar Village, Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Through his Constituted Attorney Mr. Bajranglal Hiralal Sharma ... Complainant V/s.

1. CLASSIC DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

Through its Authorised Officer, Having its office at - 1" Floor, State Bank of India Bldg., Annex Bank Street, Homimon Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 023

2. Mr. Karan Naik Proprietor of Veena Estate Consultants Having its office at L4D/S-19, Aswath CHS., Pratiksha Nagar, Sion, Mumbai-400 022. ... Opponents BEFORE:

Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member APPEARANCE:

For the Complainant: Advocate Uday Warunjikar For Opposite Party No.1 : Advocate Bindu Jain For Opposite Party No.2 : Advocate Anita Marathe JUDGMENT (18/06/2025)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma – Presiding Member :

1. The Complainant has filed this consumer complaint through his father who is constituted attorney against Opponent No. 1 – Classic Developers Pvt. Ltd., and Opponent No. 2 – Mr. Karan Naik, Proprietor of Veena Estate Consultants, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2. It is the Complainant’s case that he had booked Flat No. 704, Wing ‘A’, in a building known as Classic Apartment situated at Shivshakti CHS Ltd., Vaishet Pada, Kurar Village, Malad (East), Mumbai, through Opponent No. 2, who was acting on behalf of Opponent No. 1. Initially, an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was paid in cash on 19.04.2011 to Opponent No. 2, for which a receipt was issued. Thereafter, the Complainant paid total ₹5,00,000/- through three cheques dated 28.04.2011, 26.05.2011, and 11.06.2011. These were credited into the bank account of Opponent No. 1. An Allotment Letter dated 11.05.2011 was issued, and subsequently, a registered Agreement for Sale was executed on 14.07.2011.

3. To arrange the balance consideration, the Complainant applied for a housing loan from Axis Bank, which was sanctioned on 07.12.2011 for ₹24,00,000/-. However, disbursement was delayed due to non-cooperation by the Opponents. The society’s No Objection Certificate (NOC) was not provided despite several follow-ups. Eventually, the Complainant himself managed to obtain the society’s NOC on 12.01.2012. Only after that, Opponent No. 1 issued its NOC on 23.05.2012. During this time, Axis Bank refused to release the loan as Classic Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Opponent No. 1) was shown as a struck-off company as per the Registrar of Companies records. This issue was intimated to the Opponents by the Complainant via email.

4. Due to the inoperative status of Opponent No. 1, the Complainant had to independently track the ROC status. Eventually, the company was restored in July 2012, after which the loan process resumed. In 2013, the Complainant requested a fresh demand letter but no revised letter was issued. Axis Bank finally cancelled the loan on 29.08.2013, citing non-submission of required documents. Left with no option, the Complainant arranged the balance ₹23,00,000/- from personal sources and issued three cheques dated 24.01.2014 and 14.03.2014, amounting to the full balance consideration.

5. These cheques were handed over to Opponent No. 2, who received them on behalf of Opponent No. 1. However, the cheques were never deposited. Later, in June 2014, the Complainant received a demand notice from Opponent No. 1 asking for an additional ₹11,01,600/- towards interest, apart from the original agreement value. The Complainant replied to this demand on 24.06.2014 and through legal notices dated 22.07.2014 and 01.12.2014. As no possession was given and the Opponents failed to respond, the Complainant filed this consumer complaint on

01.08.2014, seeking possession of the flat and compensation.

6. After considering the complaint and documents filed, this Co