STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No. CC/16/226

1. Annabel Elaine D’Souza, Adult, Occupation: Service, Preently residing at 2/C, Bethlehem Apartments, 400 S.V.P. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 103.

2. Avril Noel D’Souza Adult, Occupation: Service, Presently residing at 2/C, Bethlehem Apartments, 400 S.V.P. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 103. …………. Complainant Versus Lakozy Builders LLP, A Limited Liability Partnership Firm Registered Office:

1301, 13th floor, Peninsula Business Park, Tower-B, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai – 400013. ….... Opposite Party BEFORE:

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

For the Complainant : Advocate Hardik Shah, Advocate Sajira Jondhale I/b.

Advocate Uday Wavikar For Opposite Party : Advocate Manisha Kadam

JUDGMENT

(Date: 13-08-2025)

Per: Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member

1. This complaint is filed under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the complainants against the opposite party, a builder and developer – alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practices in respect of a residential flat booked by them in the project “Tulip” by Anchor Park.

2. The complainants contended that despite having paid more than the total consideration amount as per the registered agreement for sale, the opposite party failed and neglected to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the booked flat within the stipulated period, and instead raised illegal demands not contemplated by law or the agreement.

3. The complainants stated that on 05/10/2014 they had booked Flat No. 301, 3rd floor, “B” Wing, Tulip, Anchor Park, Achole Road, Vasai East, District- Palghar having carpet area of 368 Sq. Ft. for a total consideration of Rs. 27,90,000/- excluding stamp duty and registration charges. The agreement for sale was duly registered on 05/03/2015 bearing Registration No. : VASAI4-1174-2015 after payment of the requisite stamp duty and registration fees. As per the agreement clause 10 (a.) possession of the flat was to be delivered by December 2015 with a grace period of six months, subject to no undue delay by governmental authorities in granting occupation certificate.

4. The complainants further stated that at the time of booking, the opposite party offered them the benefit of a subvention scheme, whereby the builder would reimburse the interest on EMIs till possession if the loan was availed from certain listed banks.

5. Acting on this assurance, the complainants availed a housing loan from HDFC Bank and regularly paying the EMIs from August 2015 onwards, even though possession of the flat has not been handed over, instead demanded amounts towards service tax, advance maintenance, and interest on alleged delayed payment thereby causing them financial strain.

6. According to the complainants, they have paid in all Rs. 30,79,111/- to the opposite party, which is Rs. 2,89,111/- more than the agreed consideration. Complainants alleged that the flat was ready for possession since September 2015, yet the opposite party withheld possession on the ground of alleged interest dues of Rs. 75,747/- for delayed payment of Rs. 3,06,900/-, without furnishing any proof of valid service of the demand letter or architect’s certificate as required under law.

7. Complainants asserted that such conduct amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. They have therefore approached this Commission seeking possession without the disputed demand, refund of the alleged excess payment, compensation for the delay and mental harassment, and reimbursement of EMIs paid during the delay period.

8. The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party filed a written statement. They denied all allegations of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. It is contended that the complainants failed to make timely payments as pe