A developer's failure to deliver the agreed carpet area, delay in possession, failure to obtain an Occupation Certificate, and default in paying agreed rent compensation constitutes a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.

JUDGMENT

Per:

Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi,

Member

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the Complainant under section 17 of the consumer protection Act 1986 against M/s Jascons Developers and its partners (Opposite Parties), alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The brief facts giving rise to file the present complaint are as under:

2. The Complainant submits that he is a “consumer” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he had purchased a residential flat from the Opposite Parties on ownership basis pursuant to redevelopment of an existing building known as “Dolas House” situated at Khar (West), Mumbai.

3. It is the case of the Complainant that in the year 2010, the Opposite Parties approached him for redevelopment of the said property and agreed to allot him a flat at the 5th floor admeasuring approximately 1250 sq. ft. saleable area (750 sq. ft. carpet area) along with one car parking space in “JASTCONS HEIGHTS” situated at Dolas House, Konkanstha CHS 19th Road Khar (west) , Mumbai 400052. An Agreement dated 04/08/2010 and an allotment letter dated 04/08/2010 were executed in his favour.

4. The Complainant further submits that as per the said agreement, the Opposite Parties were under an obligation to provide temporary alternate accommodation or pay monthly compensation towards rent till handing over possession of the flat. However, the Opposite Parties allegedly defaulted in payment of rent and failed to comply with their contractual obligations.

5. It is specifically alleged that despite lapse of more than three and a half years, the Opposite Parties neither completed the construction nor handed over possession of the flat. The Complainant contends that construction work remained incomplete, with more than 50% work pending, and no definite timeline for possession was communicated.

6. The Complainant further submits that the Opposite Parties were in arrears of rent/compensation for several months and failed to pay agreed monthly compensation (Rs.60,000/- per month), resulting in financial hardship. Due to such default, the Complainant was compelled to borrow money and suffered monetary loss as well as mental agony.

7. It is also contended that the Opposite Parties failed to adhere to the agreed terms by reducing the area of the flat to be allotted and by not providing proper amenities, thereby causing serious prejudice to the Complainant. Additionally, possession was not handed over legally; only keys were allegedly given without Occupation Certificate.

8. The Complainant states that despite issuance of legal notice dated 09/12/2013 and subsequent reminders, the Opposite Parties failed to comply with their obligations or resolve the grievances. According to the Complainant, the acts and omissions of the Opposite Parties amount to clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

9. Hence, the Complainant had filed this complaint before us seeking directions against the Opposite Parties for handing over possession of the flat with agreed specifications and parking, payment of arrears of rent/compensation along with compensation for mental agony and financial along with cost.

10. The Complaint was admitted . The notice was duly issued to the Opposite Parties. Despite service of notice, the Opposite Party No.3 failed to remain present before this Commission and also failed to file its written statement