##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI

Consumer Complaint No.SC/27/CC/17/1127

Jay Bhagwan Bhagat,

Age:- 3 Years, Occu: Service,

Residing at Khargar Sector 12,

Niwara Building, Room No.2,

Ground Floor ….... Complainant

Versus

1. Pratidyna Builder & Developers,

Through its Partners

A, Omkar Arcade, 1st Floor,

Sector 15 (A),

New Panvel (E) 410206,

2. Bhimaji Leera Patel, Partner of O.P.No.1

H.I.G. Building No.91,

Opposite Birla College,

Kalyan (W), Thane,

Maharashtra – 421301.

3. Rajesh Hirji Patel, Partner of O.P.No.1

Room No.4, Ground Floor,

Kedarnath Co. HSL,

Chota Mahsoba Ground,

Sampada Hospital, Kalyan (W)

Thane – 421301.

CC/17/1127 Page 2 of 10

4. Sachin Eknath Magar, Partner of O.P.No.1

11/2, Vijay Nagar Colony,

Chembur, Mumbai - 400074. ....... Opponents

BEFORE:

Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member

Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member

APPEARANCE:

For Complainant : Advocate Baliram V. Kamble

For Opponent : None

JUDGMENT

(Date 28-01-2026)

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

1. The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint

under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging

deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the

Opponents, who are builders and developers engaged in

construction business.

2. It is the case of the complainant that in the year 2013, the

Opponents had launched a residential project known as

“MAHALAXMI GARDEN” under the heading of Pratidnya

Developers at Kharghar, Navi Mumbai. The complainant

approached the Opponents for purchase of a residential flat and

was informed that Flat No.504 on the 5th Floor, admeasuring

339.21 sq. ft. carpet area, at Plot No.235, Sector 10 Kopara,

PVM+RRP

CC/17/1127 Page 3 of 10

Kharghar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad was available for a total

consideration of Rs.18,16,500/-.

3. Relying upon the representations made by the Opponents, the

complainant booked the said flat and paid amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- and followed by several payments from time to time.

Thereafter, the Complainant further paid the amount of

Rs.50,000/- through cheque and Opposite Party issued receipt for

the same dated 23-02-2015. The Complaiannt further paid the

cash amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the Opposite Party issued

receipt for the same 08-02-2015. After receiving the amount of

Rs.7,00,000/-. Both the Parties executed registered agreement on

15/02/2015 .

4. After executing the agreement for sale the Opponents

Demanded the balance amount from the complainant. Therefore

the complainant further paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- by

cheque and receipt was issued for the same by Opponent dated

27-07-2015. The Complainant further paid the amount of Rs.

1,50,000/- through cheque which was duly cleared from

Complainant bank account. The Complainant totally paid the

amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in addition the Complainant paid the

cash amount of Rs.1,80,580/- as stamp duty and registration

charges. Therefore the Complainant in aggrigrate had paid

Rs.11,80,580/- to the Opponent. The Opponents informed that

they will handover possession to the Complainant within two year

from the date of registration.

PVM+RRP

CC/17/1127 Page 4 of 10

5. The complainant further states that though the construction

was represented to be substantially complete and possession was

promised within a stipulated period, the Opponents failed to hand

over peaceful possession of the flat. After some delay, the

Opponents informed the complainant that due to alleged

difficulties, the earlier project was scrapped and the complainant’s

amount was transferred to another project of the Opponents, again

assuring delivery of possession.

6. Despite repeated follow-ups, the Opponents neither handed

over possession of the agreed flat nor provided any alternate

accommodation. It is further alleged that in December 2016, the

building was demolished pursuant to CIDCO action, which was

informed to the complainant much later. Even thereafter, no

concrete proposal for alternate flat or refund was offered by

Opponents.

7. The comp