STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No. CC/19/223

1. Mrs. Sneha Sanjay Gawandi

2. Mr. Sanjay Govardhan Gawandi Adress:

2/117, Old M.H.B. Colony, Gorai Road, Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 091. …… Complainant Versus Mrs. Pankti Jignesh Goradiya Proprietor of M/s. Shreeji Associates (Builder and Developers)

Office and Developers)

Office address at:

Flat No.1, Shriji Krupa, Plot No.84, Sector No.12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. ..... Opposite Party BEFORE:

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

For the Complainant: Advocate Sajira Jondhale For Opposite Party : Advocate Saiyed Sahil M. Nagamiya

JUDGMENT

(Date: 12-12-2025)

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

1. The Complainants have filed the present Consumer Complaint under Section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opponent, who is a sole proprietor engaged in the business of construction and development .

2. The Complainants submitted that in the year 2015, with an intention to purchase a residential flat, they approached the Opponent and were induced to book a flat in a project known as “Maple Viva” situated at Plot No. 10, Sector No. 3, Ulwe, Navi Mumbai. Accordingly, on 26.05.2015, the Complainants booked Flat No. 605 on the 6th floor admeasuring about 560 sq. ft. carpet area along with flower bed and terrace area, for a total consideration of Rs. 45,21,000/-. The Opponent issued a confirmation letter dated 26.05.2015 acknowledging the booking amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- paid by the Complainants .

3. It is further the case of the Complainants that an Agreement for Sale was executed on 31.05.2015 and duly registered on 31.07.2015. As per the Agreement, possession of the flat was to be handed over within six months from the date of registration with a grace period of sixty days. The Complainants have paid an amount of Rs. 44,21,000/- towards the flat consideration through various cheques and additionally paid service tax and other charges as demanded by the Opponent from time to time .

4. The Complainants allege that despite receiving almost the entire consideration, the Opponent failed to hand over possession within the agreed period. Due to delay, the Opponent assured payment of Rs. 15,000/- per month as rent in case possession was not delivered by 15.06.2017; however, the Opponent failed to honor the said assurance. The Complainants further allege that disputes regarding title of the land surfaced, which caused mental harassment and litigation expenses to them, though the said dispute was later resolved in September 2018 .

5. It is further contended that on 24.04.2018, the Opponent forcibly handed over possession of the flat in a defective, incomplete, and uninhabitable condition without obtaining Occupation Certificate and Building Completion Certificate, compelling the Complainants to sign possession documents. Upon inspection, the Complainants found that the construction quality was substandard and the flat was not in a habitable condition. An independent architect inspected the flat and submitted a report dated 05.11.2018 estimating expenses of Rs. 3,58,400/- for rectification of defects .

6. The Complainants allege that despite repeated requests, the Opponent failed to rectify defects, provide promised amenities, obtain statutory certificates, and hand over peaceful and legal possession of the flat, thereby committing deficiency in service under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the Complainants have approached this Commission seeking appropriate reliefs including possession with Occupation Certificate, compensation, interest for delay, rectification of defects or costs thereof, rent for delayed possession, and compensation for mental agony alongwith litigation cost.

7. The Complaint was admitted. The notice was issued to the Opponent. The Opponent appea