STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.CC/20/225 Smt. Rajashree Mahuli Flat No.204, Bldg. No.3, Shubharambh Complex Phase 1, Manpada, Thane (W) 400 610. Complainant versus

1. Harsh Infrastructure Partnership Firm L-98, Dreams The Mall, LBS Road, Bhandup (W), Mumbai 400 078.

2. Shri. Padmakaar P. Gokarna Partner Harsh Infrastructure L-98, Dreams The Mall, LBS Road, Bhandup (W), Mumbai 400 078.

3. Shri. Suresh U. Trevedia Partner Harsh Infrastructure L-98, Dreams The Mall, LBS Road, Bhandup (W), Mumbai 400 078. Opposite Parties BEFORE:

Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member Dr. Satish A. Munde, Member PRESENT:

For the Complainant a/w Complainant(s): Advocate V.S.Lakshmanan For the Advocate Virendra Tiwari Opposite Party(s): for Nos.1 and 2 -:JUDGMENT-:

Dated : 26^th June, 2024 Per: Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member

1. This consumer complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant claiming herself to be a consumer. The Opposite Party (OP) No. 1 is a partnership firm and OP Nos. 2 and 3 are its partners. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the Opposite Parties.

2. The brief facts of the present consumer complaint according to the complainant are as follows:

(a) The complainant, a senior citizen aged 65 years, she was a protected tenant. She was approached by the developer to vacate her rented flat / Room number 12, Panchvati Satyabodh Niwas, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 in return for an alternate brand new flat with additional area. She was also promised Rs 40 per square foot per month and an escalation of 10% every year.

(b) The complainant had given irrevocable consent based on which the owners of the land had entered into a redevelopment agreement with the opposite parties, and the terms of the complainant became part of the redevelopment agreement in the year 2016.

(c) The complainant was asked to vacate the flat, and accordingly, she vacated it. The opposite parties had promised to pay rent to the complainant but failed and neglected to pay the rent, shifting allowance, and brokerage, thereby being liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

(d) The said building was declared depleted and dangerous to occupy. Hence, the complainant has approached this Commission with a prayer to get possession of a new flat on the same plot of land or in a nearby building along with a prayer to reimburse her for the cost of rent, shifting, and brokerage, and to compensate her for mental torture and legal charges.

3. The complaint was admitted on 09/02/2021, and notices were issued to the Opposite Parties. Despite service of notice, the Opposite Parties failed to appear before the commission, and the matter proceeded ex-parte against the Opposite Parties, which is reflected in the daily order dated

03/05/2023.

4. The complainant had filed an evidence affidavit on

12/12/2022, which is recorded in the Roznama, and the same was repeated in the Roznama dated 03/05/2023. At the time of the final hearing, the advocate for the complainant informed that the original affidavit of evidence is not available in the court file and filed an application to take a copy of the affidavit of evidence of the complainant on record in lieu of the original which was misplaced from the file. The application was allowed, and the affidavit of evidence of the complainant was taken on record on 04/12/2023.

5. Thereafter, the complainant filed written notes of argument along with citations, and the matter was kept for final hearing. It was closed for order, but before the order, the advocate for the complainant moved an application for the production of the full agreement of redevelopment along with the affidavit of the complainant, which was allowed on 15/05/2024. Also, the advocate for the complainant referred and relied upon the citation of the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay in WP(L) No. 1135 of 2014 passed in Municipal