STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI.

Consumer Complaint No. CC/21/173

1. Daisy Sheriyar Irani An adult Indian Inhabitant, aged 48 years, Occupation: Service

2. Sheriyar Behram Irani An adult Indian Inhabitant, aged 48 years, Occupation: Service Both residing at K-2/33, Merwanjee Cama Park, Cama Road, Andheri (west), Mumbai – 400058. …… Complainant Versus

1. ERA Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

2. Omkar Realtors & Developers P.Ltd.

Both having its office at:

Omkar House, Eastern Express Highway, Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signa, Sion (East), Mumbai – 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 Complainants had 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 Complainants in short is that the complainants, residents of Mumbai, booked a residential flat—Flat No. 2103, on the 21st floor of Wing “B”, in the project “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.1,90,82,950/-, out of which the Complainants had paid Rs.1,82,64,369/- , through a combination of self-funding and home loan facilities including Development charges ,Taxes and other charges . Both the Parties entered into Agreement dtd 04/02/2017. The Complainants alleged that the possession of the flat was contractually agreed to be delivered by March 2019, as per Clause 13 of the Agreement for Sale dated 04/02/2017. 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.

3. It is alleged that the structure constructed by the Opposite Parties is of sub standard quality and upon visiting the Project site it was observed that the building is not being constructed as per the standards Promised and the quality of construction is compromised.

4. The Complainant served a legal notice dated 17.03.2021, to Opposite parties. Though duly received by the Opposite Parties they failed to reply the said notice.

5. The Complainants have been paying the regular instalments towards the consideration of the Flat . However possession of the flat is yet to be granted to them. Though the Opposite Parties have received the Substantial amount towards the cost of flat but failed to deliver the possession till date amounting to deficiency in service. Hence Complaints have filed the Complaint before this commission .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 along with Compensation and cost.

6. The Complaint was admitted, Notice was issued to the Opposite Parties .The Opposite Parties appeared but failed to file the Written version within stipulated limitation period hence No Written version order was passed against them on 25/11/2022. The advocate for Opposite parties filed their written Arguments on law points and argued 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 contains an arbitration clause, binding the parties to resolve disputes through arbitration under Clause 73. Hence, the Commissio