STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No. CC/17/1541 Mr. Krishna B. Bhere Age: 46 years, Occupation: Service Mrs. Kalyani K. Bhere Age: 41 years, Occupation: homemaker Having address at Shramjivi Nagrik Society, Nagesh Patil Wadi, Chembur, Mumabi – 400071. …………. Complainant Versus Avinash Enterprises A Proprietary concern Having address at Plot no.340, Gangotri Apartment, At Shiravane, Post Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400 706.

Through its Proprietor Mr. Avinash Saroj. .…..…... Opposite Parties BEFORE:

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

For the Complainant : Advocate Jehangir Gai For Opposite Party : Advocate K.M. Jena JUDGMENT (Date: 11-11-2025)

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

1. The present consumer complaint is filed by the Complainants, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Short Facts leading to filing of the complaint are narrated as under:

2. The Complainants based on the representations and assurances of the Opposite Party regarding valid development rights and timely completion of construction, agreed to purchase Flat No. 405, admeasuring 550 sq.ft., in Building “A” situated at House No. 0424/0002 , Sarsole at Navi Mumbai in the project known as “Krishna Niwas” for a total consideration of Rs. 15,01,000/-. At the time of Confirmation of booking the Opposite Party assured that possession would be delivered by June 2015. Pursuant to booking, the Complainants paid a total sum of Rs.14,02,000/-, i.e.,93% of the total consideration, between March 2013 and January 2017. The Opposite Party had acknowledged the said Payment by issuing receipts. Despite receiving substantial payment, the Opposite Party failed and neglected to execute a registered Agreement for Sale, in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA).

This non-execution is alleged to constitute both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

3. The Complainants had contended that the Opposite Party failed to complete construction as promised and did not provide any regular updates regarding the project status. In May 2017, a portion of the building was demolished by CIDCO for want of required permissions. Upon enquiry, the Opposite Party assured that sanctions were being obtained and alternatively promised to allot a similar flat in the same locality. However, no concrete action was followed. Despite repeated follow-ups, the Opposite Party neither provided a definite date of possession nor refunded the amount paid.

4. According to the Complainants, the Opposite Party’s conduct shows that they are guilty of unfair trade practice, particularly by accepting more than 20% consideration without executing a registered agreement, misrepresenting that the project would be completed by June 2015, not obtaining mandatory permissions, refusing to provide progress updates, and not offering possession or refund. Hence the Complainants Sent legal notice through their Advocate dated 09.09.2017 calling upon the Opposite Party to execute the registered agreement, complete construction, and hand over possession. The Opposite Party's reply dated 25.10.2017 denied the allegations but assured possession within six months, without addressing the issue of execution of agreement or compensation for delay. Hence the Complainants had filed this Complaint with a Prayer to Direct the Opposite Party to execute the Agreement for Sale in respect of the said flat . Direct the Opposite Party to obtain Occupation Certificate and handover possession of said flat .Direct the Opposite Party to pay interest @18% p.a. on Rs.14,02,000/- from 04.03.2013 till 31/12/2017 or alternatively to refund Rs.14,02,000/- with 24% interest along with compensation and costs.

5. The Complaint was admitted. The notice was issued to the Opposite Party .The advocate for opposite Party appeared an