STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.CC/19/797 MRS.SOWMIYALAKSHMI SUBRAMANI

89/9, Western Railway Quarters, Matunga Road, Mumbai 400 019. Complainant versus Prathemesh Constructions (Also known as Ram Builders & Developers)

Through its Director, Mr. Arvind Anand Having its Corporate Office at-

407, Punit Chambers, Plot No. 796-C, Sector 18, Turbe, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 705. Opponent BEFORE:

Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member Dr. Satish A. Munde, Member For the Complainant present Complainant : a/w Advocate Esha Mallick For the Opponent: Advocate Rajesh H. Patil JUDGMENT (Dated: 22^nd April, 2024 Per : Hon’ble Dr. Satish A. Munde, Member The Complainant has filed present consumer complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The gist of the complaint is as under-

1] It is contended by the Complainant that, the Complainant alongwith her late husband had booked Row House No. 19, in Phase V of ‘Vighnaharta Enclave B’, having saleable area admeasuring 1540 square feet for total consideration of Rs.41,00,000/- for residential purpose on and about 11th April 2010 and on the same date in pursuance of the booking paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the earnest money to the Opponent. After few months on and about January, 2011 the Opponent had arranged meeting in his office and called the Complainant and her late husband for discussion and informed that due to non obtaining of some of the required permissions from the appropriate authorities, the opponent has offered the Complainant as an alternative another residential Row House bearing Row House No.5 ‘Vignaharta Enclave B’ , Phase V, situated at Survey No. 46, Hissa No. 5(i) Shiloter, Raichur (Sukapur), Taluka Panvel, District Raigad (hereinafter referred to as the said Row House) on another land with the same area and given assurance that possession of the same will be handed over to the Complainant by the Opponent on or before 31/12/2013. The Complainant has paid substantial amount i.e. almost 80% of total consideration to the Opponent on various dates by cheque or in cash. The complainant has paid Rs.30 lakhs out of total consideration of Rs.41 lakhs of the said Row House. The description of payment by the Complainant to the Opponent is as under –

It is contended that the Complainant had paid amount of Rs,2,81,400/-for registration charges for the said Row House. The total paid amount is Rs.27,18,600/- + Rs.2,81,400/- i.e. Rs.30,00,000/-. But the opponent failed to execute an agreement and to hand over the possession of the said Row House within agreed period. Hence, the Complainant visited the office of the Opponent on 19th February, 2018 and demanded refund of their hard earned money with interest@ 18% p.a. from the date of default by cancelling the said booking of the Row House No. 5 vide email dated 21st February, 2018 to the opponent and accordingly the Opponent assured to the Complainant that the refund will be effected in his account through RTGS or NEFT within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of email. But Opponent failed and neglected to return the amount. The complainant issued legal notice dated 20th December, 2018 calling the Opponent to handover possession of the said Row House as promised with all the agreed amenities or in