Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 33407
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Kalyani Kapse, Presiding Member, Shaila D. Wandhare, Member
Anju Mundhada – Appellant
Versus
Waghmare Developers – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/CB2/27/CC/93/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Narendra G. Jetha
For the Respondents: None
A developer is liable for deficiency in service for failing to complete construction and provide promised amenities as per an agreement and brochure, entitling the consumer to reimbursement for rectifying incomplete works and compensation for mental agony.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 - Deficiency in service regarding flat construction - Agreement to sell dated 21/10/2014 - Failure to provide basic amenities and occupancy certificate - Responsibility of builder to provide services as per agreement and brochure - Findings of court, in the interest of justice, that the complainant is entitled to compensation for expenses incurred on completing unfinished flat works and for mental agony. (Paras 1, 7, 27)
Facts of the case:
The complainants entered into an agreement with the opponent for the purchase of a flat in a residential scheme known as "Parijat Height." Despite receiving the full sale consideration, the builder failed to complete the construction, provide agreed amenities, or obtain necessary occupancy and fire safety certificates. The complainants were forced to complete the interior and essential works at their own expense.
Findings of Court:
The commission concluded that there was a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent. The opponent failed to substantiate claims regarding additional unpaid consideration. Consequently, the board directed the builder to reimburse the costs incurred by the complainants for electrification, flooring, POP, and bathroom fittings, along with damages for mental agony.
Issues: Whether the builder committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by failing to provide the promised amenities and whether the complainants are entitled to reimbursement for construction costs and compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: A builder is contractually bound to provide amenities and infrastructure as stipulated in the agreement and the promotional brochure. Failure to do so despite receiving the full consideration constitutes a deficiency in service warranting compensation for costs incurred by the consumer to rectify the incomplete work.
Result: Complaint partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of the consumer relationship between the complainants and the developer. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. determination of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. assessment of evidence regarding contractual performance, sale consideration, and alleged incomplete works. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. evaluation of relief claims, including recovery for incomplete construction costs and mental agony. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
ORDER
(Delivered On 26/11/2025)
Per Mrs Kalyani Kapse, Hon’ble Presiding Member
1. Present Complaint is filled by the Complainant namely, Dr Anju and Dr Rajesh Mundhada against the opponent namely M/s Waghmare, Builder and Developer under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (In shot “The Act”)
2. The factual matrix of the Consumer Complaint is as follows- The Complainants are husband and wife. They are searching for good accommodation for them in the year 2013.
3. The non applicant is a builder and developer and having his proprietary firm under the name and style of M/s Waghmare Developers. Shri Pankaj Waghmare is its proprietor. The Non applicant having business of purchase of plots/lands and then constructed multi storied building thereon and sale the same to prospective purchasers/buyers. The opposite party accordingly floated the scheme by publishing brochure and advertisement etc. Complainant decided to purchase the flat No. 601 on 6th floor and thereafter the Non applicant executed an agreement of sale on 21/10/2014.
4. Notices were issued. OP appeared and filed the Written Version (W.S.) In order to substantiate the claim, the Complainant has adduced his Rejoinder cum Evidence Affidavit and contended that this complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. We have carefully gone through the Written notes of arguments filed by both the parties.
5. Heard Mr. Narendra Jetha, learned advocate for the Complaints No.1 and 2 and None present for the Opposite Party at the time of final hearing.
6. We have also carefully gone through the documents and papers placed on record. On the basis of the rival contentions of the parties along with material on record following points arises for our determination against which we have recorded our findings with reasons as follows-
| Sr. No. | Points for determination | Findings |
|---|---|---|
| 01 | Whether the Complainant has proved that he is a Consumer of the Opponent? | In the affirmative. |
| 02. | Whether Complainant has proved that there is Deficiency in Service under section 2 (1)(g) and Unfair Trade Practice under section 2(1)r under the Act on the part of the Opponent? | In the affirmative |
| 03. | Whether Complainant is entitled for the relief claimed? | In the affirmative |
| 04. | What order? | As per final order |
REASONS
7. As to Point No. 1- Present Complaint is filled by the Complainant namely, Dr Anju and Dr Rajesh Mundhada against the opponent namely M/s Waghmare, Builder and Developer under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (In shot “The Act”) The non applicant is a builder and developer and having his proprietary firm under the name and style of M/s Waghmare Developers. Shri Pankaj Waghmare is its proprietor. The Non applicant having business of purchase of plots/lands and then constructed multi storied building thereon and sale the same to prospective purchasers/buyers. The non the opposite party accordingly floated the scheme by publishing brochure and advertisement etc. Complainant decided to purchase the flat No. 601 on 6th floor and thereafter applicant executed an agreement of sale on 21/10/2014. We have carefully gone through the receipts and documents placed on record. And find that there is relationship between Consumer and Service Provider. Hence on this ground no hesitation to hold that Complainants are Consumers. So in our findings we held Point No.1 as Affirmative.
8. As to Point No. 2- Accordingly sale-purchase talk took plac
