STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

1] Ratnakar Shiva Shirodkar, At Present Residing At - Room No. 1725, Building No. 22,MHB Colony, Goral Road, Borivall (West), Mumbai 400 091. Complainant in CC/17/1504

2] Suresh Mahadeo Juikar, At Present Residing At 407, Kartikya Palace, S.N.Dubey Road, Rawalpada, Dahisar (E), Mumbai - 400 608. .. Complainant in CC/17/1505

3](i) Vrinda Vithoba Mohite, (ii) Vithoba Shridhar Mohille At Present Residing at :

D-304, Lata Annex, Goyal Complex, Kulupwadi, Borivali East, Mumbai 400 068.. Complainants in CC/17/1506 V/S Truly Creative Developers Pvt. Ltd.

A Company Duly Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At – 66, Rajendra Nagar, Dattapada Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai 400 066 .... Opponent in all the Cases Before :

Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V.Sharma : Presiding Member Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi : Member For Complainants :

For Opponent : No Written Version COMMON JUDGMENT (28/03/2025)

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

1. The complainants have filed these group complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party–developer, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 2. Facts of each complaint are that the complainant had booked a flat in the project undertaken by the Opposite Party at Rajendra Nagar, Borivali (East), Mumbai under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. As per the agreements and discussion with the Opposite Party the possession was assured within three years and in any case by 30.06.2001. Despite receipt of substantial amounts from the complainants, the Opposite Party failed to commence and complete the construction of the building in which the complainants’ flats were earmarked, and no possession has been delivered till date.

3. The case of the complainants, as pleaded in the complaint and further reiterated in the written notes of arguments, is that the Opposite Party is guilty of delaying the project without any justification, and despite repeated assurances and meetings, no progress was made. Instead, the Opposite Party proposed refund with 18% interest or execution of fresh agreements at escalated rates, which was not acceptable to the complainants.

4. It is contended by Advocate for the complainants that the Opposite Party is liable either to hand over lawful possession of the respective flats with Occupation Certificate by accepting the balance consideration as per the registered agreements, or in the alternative to pay compensation equivalent to the ready reckoner value in proportion to the amount already paid. The complainants have also claimed compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.

5. On 21.12.2017, these complaints were admitted and notice was issued to the Opposite Party. Despite service, the Opposite Party failed to file its written version within the statutory period prescribed under the Act. Consequently, by order dated 06.07.2018 this Commission passed a “No Written Statement” order.

6. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. By order dated 23.01.2019, the Hon’ble National Commission condoned the delay subject to payment of costs and directed the written version filed by the Opposite Party to be taken on record. However, the Opposite Party failed to comply with the said order, and therefore its written version was not accepted on record.

7. The complainants filed their affidavits in lieu of evidence and written notes of arguments. The record shows that several opportunities were granted to the Opposite Party to appear and argue on law points, but the Opposite Party failed to avail of the same. Ultimately, the matter proceeded without even oral submissions / written notes of arguments of the Opposite Party, and we heard the learned Advocate for the complainants.

8. The learned Advocate for the complainants has relied upon one leading case to support the claim and has also produce