STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI.

Consumer Complaint No. CC/23/148 Mr. Ashok Vaghji Vaviya An adult Indian Inhabitant, aged 37 years Occupation: Business

3, Gopal Chawl, Malpa Dongri No.2 Survana Maharashtra Hotel, Mumbai – 400093. …… Complainant Versus

1. ERA Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

2. Omkar Realtors &

Developers P. Ltd.

Both having their office at:

Omkar House, Eastern Express Highway Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal Sion (East), Mumabi – 400 022. ……Opposite Party BEFORE:

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

For the Complainant: Advocate Sulaiman Bhimani For Opposite Party : Advocate Kinjay Upadhyay Advocate Jayesh Vyas JUDGMENT (29-07-2025)

Per: Hon’ble Ms Poonam V. Maharshi, Member.

1. The Complainant has filed the present Consumer Complaint under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking reliefs against the Opposite Parties for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The Opposite Party No. 1 is the Promoter and Opposite Party No. 2 is the absolute Land owner and both are engaged in the business of construction & development of land.

2. The case of Complainant in short is that the complainant, a resident of Mumbai, booked a residential flat—Flat No. 1504, on the 15th floor of Wing “B”, in the project “Omkar Alta Monte”, situated at Shantaram Talao ,Siddheshwar Nagar, Konkanipada , Malad (East), Mumbai being developed by the Opposite Parties, namely the Promoter and the Landowner. The total agreed consideration for the said flat was Rs.1,73,00,000/-, out of which the Complainant paid Rs.1,07,19,594/- (inclusive of discounts), through a combination of self-funding and home loan facilities. Both the Parties entered into Agreement dtd 26/03/2018. The Complainant alleges that the possession of the flat was contractually agreed to be delivered by June 2019, as per Clause 28 of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.03.2018. Despite assurances, advertisements, brochures, and repeated follow-ups, the Opposite parties failed to deliver possession even after the lapse of several years. As of the date of filing the complaint, no possession or Occupancy Certificate has been handed over. The Complainant continues to bear the burden of pre-EMI of Rs.80,000 per month and rent for alternative accommodation. It is further alleged that the Opposite Parties misrepresented facts about L&T being the construction contractor, but later replaced it without notice. The RCC structure of the project has been left exposed for years, raising structural safety concerns. It is further contended that False promises, evasive communications, and unilateral changes in RERA possession timelines reflect unfair trade practices. Further the Opposite Parties updated the Maha RERA website with revised possession dates till December 2024, without buyer consent. Also the Architect’s certifications reveal partial construction contrary to full slab-wise demand notices raised by the Opposite parties.The Complainant served a legal notice dated 08.11.2021, to Opposite parties. Though duly received by the Opposite Parties they failed to reply the said notice. The Complainant has submitted that earlier Complaint No. 99/2022 was filed before this commission but the said complaint was withdrawn on 1/11/2022 with liberty to file fresh complaint, and the present complaint was filed thereafter. With a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to hand over possession of the flat with all promised amenities along with 18 % interest on paid Consideration or In the alternative, refund of Rs.1,07,19,594/- with interest along with Compensation and cost.

3. The Complaint was admitted, Notice was issued to the Opposite Parties .The Opposite Parties appeared and resisted the Complaint by filing written statement and has Contended that the complaint is barred by limitation, having been filed beyond the statutory period without valid justification. It is further contended that the Agreement for Sale c