STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No.CC/17/1415 Mr. Rajesh Prasad Age: 49 years, Occupation: Retired Mr. Gyanendra Prasad Age: 29 years, Occupation: Service Having address at A7/102, Swastik Plams, Near Brahmand, Phase-7, Off-Ghodbunder Road, P.O. Sandoz Baug, Thane (west) – 400607. ….... Complainants Versus M/s. Hitech Enterprises (A partnership concern)

Having registered office at Plot no.B/25, Sector-29, Agroli Village, C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614 Tal & District Thane Through its Proprietor Mr. Brijesh V. Mavani. ....... Opposite Party BEFORE:

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

For the Complainant : Advocate Poonam Makhijani For Opposite Party : Advocate Shalaka Navghare

JUDGMENT

(Date 10-12-2025)

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

1. The consumer complaint is filed by Mr. Rajesh Prasad and Mr. Gyanendra Prasad (hereinafter referred to as “Complainants”) against M/s. Hitech Enterprises, through its Proprietor Mr. Brijesh Mavani (hereinafter referred to as “Opponent”), alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against Opponent. The facts of the Complaint are as narrated below :

2. The Complainants in January 2011, approached the Opponent for purchase of a residential flat on the basis of brochures, representations and assurances made by the Opponent regarding development rights, approvals, commencement of work, amenities, connectivity and possession timelines. The Complainants agreed to purchase Flat No.904 on 9th Floor, admeasuring 543 sq.ft. carpet with terrace, in the project titled “Hi-Tech Castle” situated at Sector-17, Ulwe, IG Node, Navi Mumbai for a total price of Rs.44,28,970/-, which included a cash component of Rs.10,19,050/- allegedly towards development charges, society formation, amenities, utility connections, taxes, legal charges, parking, club house, grills, and proportionate out goings. The Complainants had asserted that at the time of booking, the Opponent assured that construction would commence in February 2011 and possession would be handed over by November 2013. It is further the Complainants’ case that they paid amounts from time to time through cheques and cash, producing receipts and plain paper acknowledgments. Payments totalled Rs.40,99,101/- (93% of the consideration), including Service Tax of Rs.84,014/-. In Aggregate the complainants had Paid the amount of Rs.41,83,115/-.The Complainants averred that although the Agreement for Sale dated 17.01.2012 was registered, the Opponent deliberately kept the possession date blank, and failed to acknowledge the cash component in the Agreement.

3. The Complainants alleged that despite assurances of early commencement and completion, the construction was delayed for years, with demand letters being issued claiming 94% construction in 2013, which according to Complainants was factually incorrect as the site showed no such progress. The Complainants state that final construction was completed only around September 2016, demonstrating inordinate delay beyond the assured timeline. The Opponent issued an offer of possession dated 01.10.2016, claiming completion and obtaining Occupancy Certificate However, the Complainants dispute the manner of completion and legality of structure. The Complainants had further alleged that upon visiting the site pursuant to the possession letter dated 01.10.2016, they found that the open terrace attached to Flat No.904 had been covered by construction done for the flat above, contrary to sanctioned plans. As per sanctioned plan, Flat No.904 (9th Floor) had an open terrace, whereas 10th Floor has no terrace, and therefore covering the terrace violates the approved plan and reduces the Complainants’ terrace rights. The Complainants repeatedly requested the Opponent to remove the unauthorised construction but alleged that the Opponent ignored such grievances.

4. The Complainants thereafter appr