Date of Filing: 15/09/2014 Date of Order: 16/09/2025 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, PUNE CIRCUIT BENCH AT PUNE COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 391 OF 2014

1. Mr.Uma Shankar Upadhyay …Complainants

2. Mrs.Arun Lata Upadhyay (Adv.Milind Mahajan)

Both above R/at : 702, Laboni Towers, 1, Aundh Road, Bopodi, Pune 411 020.

VERSUS M/s.Shree Ganesh Promoters …Opponents San Mahu Commercial Complex, (Adv.S.S.Bhalerao)

5, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411 001.

Through its Partners –

1. Mr.Jayprakash Sitaram Goel, 2. Mr.Atul Jayprakash Goel 3. Mr.Amit Jayprakash Goel R/at – 1 to 3, San Mahu Commercial Complex, 5, Bund Garden Road, Pune 411 001.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Nagesh C. Kumbre, Hon’ble Member JUDGMENT (Delivered on 16/09/2025)

Per Milind Sahebrao Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member. This is the complaint filed under S.12 r/w. S.17 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (the ‘C.P.Act’ for short).

2. It is the case of the complainants that, in 2008, they agreed to purchase the flat in the project being developed by the opponents. The name of the project was ‘Greater Ganga Panama’. The Flat Number was 602, ‘B’ wing. The agreed consideration of the flat was Rs.47,44,000/-. On 02.06.2008, the complainants paid token amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the opponents. Thereafter, from time to time up to January 2009, they paid sum of Rs.14,23,200/- to the opponents. The opponents gave them allotment letter dated 29.03.2008 of the flat. As per agreed terms, the balance amount was to be paid in installments with reference to the stage of the construction. The complainants, when observed that there is no progress in construction of the project, they requested opponents to execute agreement to sale in their favour. However, opponents avoided it all the time. On the contrary, on 02.06.2012, they cancelled the allotment. Thereafter, the complainants requested them not to cancel the allotment unilaterally. The opponents then demanded sum of Rs.2,42,450/- for stamp duty and Rs.30,000/- for registration. On 18.08.2012, the complainants handed over demand drafts of those sums to the opponents. Thereafter also, the opponents not executed agreement to sale in their favour, nor there was significant progress in the construction of the project. On 06.05.2013, the opponents refused to execute agreement to sale and returned the demand drafts to them. Ultimately, the opponents sold the disputed flat to another person. It is, therefore, they filed present complaint before us. The complainants prayed that, the opponents may kindly be directed to execute sale deed in their favour on payment of balance amount of consideration and hand over the possession of the disputed flat to them. In alternative, it is also prayed that, opponents may kindly be directed to execute the flat purchase agreement with respect to similar flat, on the same floor in the same project, or any other suitable project on the similar conditions and consideration. In alternate, it is also further prayed by the complainants that, if the opponents are not able to execute purchase agreement as above, they may kindly be directed to pay the market cost of disputed flat on the date of the complaint as compensation. They also prayed that, the opponents may kindly be directed to pay sum of Rs.10,00,000/-for damages, negligence and harassment to them along with any other suitable and just order.

3. The complainants, so as to support their complaint have filed the copies of the payment receipts, allotment letter, the communications with the opponents, the demand drafts issued by the opponents, for refund, the demand drafts returned by the opponents which were given by them for stamp duty and registration, postal receipts, evidence affidavit.

4. The opponents appeared and resisted the claim of the complainants. It is firstly contended by them that, there is no jurisdiction to this Commission to entertain and try the present complaint mainly because the declaration and consequent