STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No.SC/27/CC/19/737 Mr. Ganpat Gopal Chaugule Age 60 Years, Senior Citizen, Occ:- Retired, Residing at – Meetwala Chawl, Near Datta Mandir, Vakola, Santadcruz (E), Mumbai – 400 055. ….... Complainants Versus M/s. Jitendra Builders & Developers Through its Proprietor, Mr. Jitendra Narsinha Ghate, Age-31 years, Occupation:- Business, Having registered office at:- H-202, 2nd Floor, Nerul Railway Station Complex, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400 706. ....... Opponent BEFORE:

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

For the Complainant : Advocate Nanabhau B. Vharkate For Opponent : Advocate Ramakant Pawar

JUDGMENT

(Date 12-01-2026)

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

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed the Complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opponent–Builder.

2. It is the case of the Complainant that the Opponent is a builder and developer engaged in construction and sale of residential premises. The Complainant had booked the residential flat No. 402 admeasuring area 379.82 sq.ft Carpet area on 4th floor in “Krishna Bhavan”, Plot no.C-30 ,Sector -08 ,Ulwe , Navi Mumbai – 410206 for the total consideration amount of Rs.22,75,000/- in the project developed by the Opponent. Both the Parties entered into an agreement for sale on 09/07/2015.

3. The Complainant had stated that after booking the subject flat in the project of the Opponent, the Complainant had paid entire agreed consideration of Rs.22,75,000/-. The payments were accepted by the Opponent and receipts were issued accordingly.

The Complainant had further averred that as per the representations and assurances given by the Opponent at the time of booking and execution of agreement, the Opponent had promised to give the Flat on the full payment of Consideration amount Relying upon these assurances, the Complainant continued to make payments as demanded by the Opponent but the opponent had failed to give the possession of the Flat Violating clause 6 of the agreement for sale. The Opponent failed to complete the construction of the building and did not offer possession of the flat to the Complainant. The complainant had approached the grahak panchayat Mumbai who took the cognizance and sent notice to the opponent dtd.19/06/2019 .The Opponent replied the said notice stating that the complainants booking has been cancelled and Rs. 3,50,000/-is already paid to the complainant. But the said Payment was given to the complainant as afriendly loan and has nothing to do with flat purchase transaction.It is further contended that the opponent till date had not sent any letter of flat booking or cancellation to the complainant. Despite repeated oral and written follow-ups, the Opponent avoided giving any definite date of possession and continued to delay the matter on one pretext or another.

4. The Complainant had alleged that the Opponent neither completed the construction nor refunded the amount paid by the Complainant. According to the Complainant, such conduct clearly amounts to deficiency in service. It is further contended that the Opponent indulged in unfair trade practice by collecting money from the Complainant without completing the project within the promised time and by making false assurances regarding possession.

5. The Complainant had therefore filed the complaint before this Commission with a prayer to direct the Opponent to either hand over possession of the flat within a reasonable time or, in the alternative, to refund the entire amount paid along with interest compensation and costs.

6. The Complaint was admitted, Notice was issued to the Opponent .The Opponent appeared and resisted the Complaint by filing written statement and had Contended that this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute as