For determining pecuniary jurisdiction in consumer complaints, if the relief sought relates to common facilities or obligations concerning the entire project (e.g., Occupation Certificates or conveyance), the aggregate value of the entire project must be considered rather than the individual unit's value.

JUDGMENT

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

1. The complainants had filed the present consumer complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opponents, who are builders and developers. The op no.2 and 3 are the partners of OP no.1. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

2. It is the case of the complainants that the opponents undertook a housing project known as “Leela Apartment”. The complainants had booked Flat No. 401 on the 4th Floor, admeasuring about 750 sq. ft. (built-up area) at“Leela Apartment”, Ramdas Wadi, syndicate Kalyan (West), District Thane. An Agreement for Sale dated 30/09/2011 was executed between the parties for a total consideration of Rs. 26,50,000/-, which was duly registered.

3. The complainants had averred that after execution of the Agreement for Sale dated 30/09/2011 and payment of substantial consideration, the opponents repeatedly demanded instalments at the earliest, even when the construction had not reached the corresponding stage. The complainants has stated that he complied with such demands and paid the entire agreed consideration for the flat, partly from his own funds and partly through a housing loan obtained from HDFC Ltd.

4. The grievance of the complainants is that the opponents, despite receiving the full consideration, recovered excess and illegal amounts under various heads such as additional charges, society formation charges, legal charges, and other miscellaneous amounts, over and above the agreed consideration. The complainants had alleged that an amount of Rs. 31,67,000/- and further sums including Rs.5,17,000/- and Rs.45,000/- were illegally collected towards legal charges, entrance fees, share capital, society formation charges, MSEB meter deposit and water connection charges, without issuing proper receipts or maintaining separate accounts. The Opponents had recovered the amount of Rs.1,08,385/- towards VAT and service Tax. Whereas according to MOFA the Opponents were duty bound to utilize the amount so collected towards other charges for same by maintaining separate account.

5. It is further alleged that the opponents failed to complete the construction work in all respects and did not provide essential amenities as promised. The complainants had pointed out several deficiencies in construction, including incomplete common amenities, improper plastering, leakage issues, lack of fire-fighting arrangements, absence of proper water connection, defective electrical wiring, cracks in walls, and other structural and finishing defects.

6. The complainants has also alleged that the opponents failed to obtain the Occupation Certificate and neglected to form and register a co-operative housing society of flat purchasers, despite collecting amounts towards society formation. According to the complainants, the amounts collected for these purposes were misappropriated, amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

7. It is further pleaded that the opponents assured timely completion of construction and delivery of possession with all basic amenities, but failed to fulfil their contractual and statutory obligations. According to the complainants, the construction suffered from serious deficiencies such as incomplete common amenities, leakage, cracks in walls, improper plasterin