Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 38531
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member, Poonam V. Maharshi, Member
MR.MANOJ RAJENDRAPRASAD DUBEY – Appellant
Versus
M/S.SEVEN ELEVEN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD.THROUGH DIRECTOR MR.NARENDRA L.MEHTA AND ANR – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No.1116/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H.R. Sharma
For the Respondents: Ajay Pawar
A builder is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice if they execute agreements without valid sanctions, delay project permissions, levy arbitrary interest for delays caused by themselves, and unilaterally cancel an allotment after facilitating loan disbursal from the consumer's bank.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 - Deficiency in service - Unfair trade practice - Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 - Section 3(2)(f) - Absence of stipulated date of possession in agreement - Arbitrary levy of interest - Failure to furnish documents for loan disbursement - Unjustified cancellation of allotment - Builders/Promoters cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong by executing agreements without requisite sanctions - Facilitating loan disbursement and thereafter refusing payment amounts to unfair trade practice. (Paras 23, 24, 25, 26, 28)
Facts of the case:
The complainant booked a flat with the Opposite Parties and made part payments. A registered agreement was executed, but the Opposite Parties failed to furnish documents for a housing loan, citing lack of plan sanction for the 7th floor. Subsequently, after obtaining amended permission, the Opposite Parties demanded interest for alleged delays. Despite confirming the validity of the agreement to the complainant's bank and the bank disbursing the loan, the Opposite Parties refused to accept the payment and unilaterally cancelled the allotment.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found the Opposite Parties guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The cancellation was held to be illegal and arbitrary, especially after the builder had facilitated bank financing. The Commission directed the handover of possession upon payment of the balance amount, awarded compensation, and litigation costs.
Issues: Whether the complaint is maintainable; whether it is within the limitation period; whether the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service; and whether the complainant is entitled to possession and compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: A builder cannot be permitted to impose arbitrary interest or unilaterally cancel an agreement due to failures arising from their own lapse in obtaining necessary statutory approvals, nor can they refuse payment after facilitating loan disbursement based on contractual terms they themselves breached.
Result: Complaint partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegation of deficiency in service regarding flat possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. opposite party defense regarding contractual defaults by consumer. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. determination of consumer status and limitation period. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. court observation on unfair trade practices and builder conduct. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. final determination of reliefs and possession order. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
BEFORE:
Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member
Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member
APPEARANCE:
For the Complainant : Advocate H.R. Sharma
For Opposite Party : Advocate Ajay Pawar
JUDGMENT
(Date 14-11-2025)
Per: Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member
1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties in respect of Flat No. D/706 on 7th floor, in the project “Seven Eleven Residency”, situated at Village Navghar, Bhayandar (East), within MBMC limits, admeasuring about 590 sq. ft. carpet area. The Opposite Party No.1 is the builder/developer. Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 are shown as Directors/Partners of Opposite Party No.1 and are impleaded on the allegation that they were responsible for the conduct of business and for the representations made to the complainant at the relevant time.
2. Before proceeding with the merits of the present complaint, it is necessary to have a brief glance at the history of the litigation as pleaded. The complainant had initially filed Consumer Complaint No.232/2014 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission/Forum, Thane, wherein an injunction order restraining creation of third party rights and interest was in existence till withdrawal. Considering that the consideration mentioned in the Agreement for Sale was Rs.25,95,000/-, the complainant sought withdrawal with liberty to approach the competent forum, and the earlier complaint came to be withdrawn on 19/11/2018. Thereafter, the present complaint is filed before this State Commission.
3. The complainant stated that he booked Flat No. D/706 and paid in all Rs.6,54,500/- towards part consideration by cheques and receipts were issued by the Opposite Parties. The payment particulars pleaded are: Rs.3,50,000/- by cheque dated 08/11/2011, Rs.1,23,600/- by cheque dated 08/11/2011, Rs.50,000/- by cheque dated 08/11/2011 and Rs.1,30,900/- by cheque dated 17/01/2012. The complainant further stated that the Opposite Parties issued allotment letter dated
4. The complainant further pleaded that Agreement for Sale dated 12/02/2013 was executed in respect of the said flat and the same was registered on 13/02/2013 bearing Registration No. : TNN-4/1373/2013 as more particulars stated in the complaint. He stated that after the agreement he applied for housing loan for paying the balance amount; that Indiabulls issued sanction letter dated 31/12/2012; however, for disbursement the bank required documents. The complainant pleaded that the Opposite Parties did not furnish the required documents and stated that the plan was not passed for 7th floor and permission was only up to 4th floor, due to which the loan was cancelled and he suffered mental and physical hardship.
5. The complainant further pleaded that the Opposite Parties demanded service tax and VAT by letters dated 05/07/2012, 09/10/2012, 31/10/2012 and 28/02/2013 and he paid the said amounts as demanded, including Rs.73,907/- by cheque dated 19/01/2013.
6. The complainant stated that MBMC issued amended commencement certificate/permission dated 13/12/2013 for construction of the 7th floor and the Opposite Parties furnished the said permission. He pleaded that prior thereto the Opposite Parties were demanding statutory dues and slab-wise amounts without charging interest; however, immediately thereafter they issued demand l
