STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No.SC/27/CC/18/393

1. Mr. Deepak Shriram Lembhe Aged 52 years, Occupation Service, 2. Mrs. Mrudula Deepak Lembhe Aged 47 years, Occupation Business, Both at present residing at A-101, Dnyan Mauli Co-operative Housing Society Limited, MDC Road, Apte Wadi, Kulgaon, Badlapur (E) – 421503, Taluka Ambernath, District Thane. ….... Complainants Versus M/s. Sai Ashray Developers (P) Ltd.

A company registered under the provisions Of Companies Act 1956 having its Registered Office at A/201, Rajpipla, Opp. Standard Chartered Bank, Linking Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400054.

Through its Managing Director, other Directors and Chief Executive Officer ....... Opponents BEFORE:

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

For Complainant : Advocate Devendranath S. Joshi For Opponent : None JUDGMENT (Date 06-03-2026)

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

1. The complainants, Mr. Deepak Shriram Lembhe and Mrs. Mrudula Deepak Lembhe, who are husband and wife, have filed the present consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent M/s. Sai Ashray Developers (P) Ltd., a company engaged in construction and development of residential projects . The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

2. The complainants had booked a residential flat bearing Flat No.103 admeasuring 38.45 sq. meters, situated on the First Floor of ‘K’ Wing in the building “Prasadam”, located at village Chikloli, Ambernath, District Thane. The total consideration of the flat was fixed atRs.22,49,250/-. The complainants had paid a total amount ofRs.19,55,326/- towards the consideration of the flat, partly from their own funds and partly through a housing loan availed from PNB Housing Finance Limited, with which the opponent had a tie- up. The details of payments made between November 2014 and April 2018 are supported by receipts and loan statements produced on record.

3. Further both the parties executed an Agreement for Sale dated 02/09/2015, was executed between the parties. As per Clause 10.1 of the Agreement, the opponent was required to hand over possession of the flat on or before May 2016, with a further grace period of nine months under Clause 10.2, which expired in January 2017. The complainants submited that despite the expiry of the stipulated period and grace period, possession of the flat has not been handed over till date of filing this Complaint.

4. The complainants contended that they visited the project site on several occasions and found that the construction was progressing at a very slow pace and even after lapse of several years beyond the agreed period, the building remained incomplete. They addressed multiple letters dated 13/06/2017, 28/08/2017, 28/09/2017 and 29/11/2017 to the opponent, pointing out the delay, deficiencies in construction, illegal demand of GST, discriminatory clauses in the agreement and the hardship caused to them. Despite receipt of these letters, the opponent did not give any reply.

5. Thereafter, the complainants issued a legal notice dated 21/12/2017, which was duly served upon the opponent. Even after service of legal notice, the opponent neither replied nor handed over possession of the flat. The complainants further stated that though the opponent sent certain emails in March 2018 showing photographs of alleged progress, no definite assurance regarding possession was given and the construction remained incomplete.

6. Due to non-delivery of possession, the complainants were compelled to reside on rented accommodation and have been paying rent of Rs.8,000/- per month since September 2015, in addition to servicing the housing loan EMIs. The complainants allege that the acts of the opponent have caused them financial loss, mental agony, physical stress and loss of reputation. Hence the complainants had filed