SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 9727

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SMT.CHHAYA BHAGWAN SAPALE – Appellant
Versus
ARYAMAN INFRATECH INDIA PVT.LTD.THROUGH DIRECTOR MR.ZUBAIR Y.SHAIKH AND ANR – Respondent
SC/27/CC/21/184



STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No.CC/21/184 Smt. Chaya Bhagwan Sapale adult Indian Inhabitant Age: 54 Occ:

Service currently residing at Building No.2, Room No.265 Vahatuk Nagar Co-

Operative Housing Society, Ceaser Road, Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. ………. Complainant Versus

1. Aryaman Infratech India Private Limited, a company Registered under the companies Act Having address at 222,223 & 224, Laxmi Plaza, New Link road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053.

2. Mr. Zubair Yusuf Shaikh Age; Not Known, Director of Aryaman Infratech India Private Limited, Having address at 222, 223 & 224, Laxmi Plaza, New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumabi – 400 053.

3. Mr. Raman Khanna Director of Aryaman Infratech India Private Limited, Having address at 222, 223 & 224, Laxmi Plaza, New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053. ………. Opposite Parties BEFORE:

Shri. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member Shri. Hon’ble Dr. Satish A. Munde, Member PRESENT:

For the Complainant : Advocate Kunal Jaywant Rane & Parmjeet Singh.

Opposite Parties : Ex-parte

ORDER

(23/10/2024)

Per: Hon’ble Dr. Satish A. Munde, Member

1. The Complainant has filed present consumer complaint under section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The brief facts of the consumer complaint are as follows:

2. The Complainant stated that in the year 2014, she was looking for residential premises for herself and for her parents in Andheri vicinity. The Complainant stated that accordingly she came across Opposite Parties’ project, namely ‘Aryaman Tanish’. The Complainant stated in the year-2014, she had visited The Opposite Parties office and the Opposite Parties have convinced the Complainant that they are constructing a building known as Aryaman Tanish on the land bearing CTS No.678, Admeasuring 697.80 sq. meter or thereabouts, situated at Village Ambivali, Taluka Andheri in the district of Mumbai Suburban District. The Complainant stated that at the relevant time the Opposite Parties have also represented to the Complainant that they have received all the permission from the local authorities for construction of building on the said plot of land and they will complete the said project on or before December-2016.

3. The Complainant stated that believing version of the Opposite Parties, she has decided to purchase a flat in said project by selling her earlier flats. Accordingly, on 15.09.2014, Complainant has booked a flat bearing No.803, 8th floor, in the building "Aryaman Tanish" situated at SBI Staff Shivner CHS Ltd., Bhardawadi Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 053, admeasuring 60.22 sq. meter (equivalent to 648 Sq. Ft.) Build up area, on land bearing CTS No.678, admeasuring 697.80 sq. meter or thereabouts, situated at Village Ambivali, Taluka Andheri in the district of Mumbai Suburban District (Hereinafter referred to as a "disputed Flat") along with one separate car parking for total consideration of Rs.1,12,98,800/-. The Complainant stated that thereafter the Opposite Parties had executed an agreement for sale on

03.12.2015 which was duly registered on 05.12.2015.

4. The Complainant stated that at the time of execution of the said agreement the Opposite Parties have assured the Complainant that they will provide one separate car parking to her and there is no necessary to mention the same in the agreement. The Complainant believed the version of the Opposite Parties and executed the said agreement. The Opposite Parties have agreed to handover the possession of the said flat to the Complainant on or before 31.12.2016.

5. The Complainant stated that as per the agreement dated 03.12.2015, the Complainant has regularly paid amount to the Opposite Parties. The Complainant stated that though the amount was required to pay slab wise as per the clause 3 of the said agreement but the Opposite Parties have pressurized the Complainant to pay the entire amount before completion of the of building. The Complainant stated that she has made payment of Rs. 1,13,22

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top