SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3395

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI


CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.SC/27/CC/22/04


Mrs. Irfana Begum Vazir Ahmed Siddiqui


Flat No. 501-B, Shelter Arcade,


Plot No. 26, Sector No.42,


Opp. D-Mart, Seawoods, Nerul (W),


Navi Mumbai-400706. ….Complainant



VERSUS


1. Mr. Sufiyan Aslam Qureshi Prop.


2. Mr. Yusuf Salim Chaudhary Prop./Director


3. Mr. Junaid Salim Chaudhary


Director of M/s. Mega Group


4. Mr. Mansoori Abdul Rehman Abdulla


Associate of Mr. Sufiyan Aslam Qureshi


5. Mr. Chand Basha Dastagir Shaikh


Associate of Mr. Sufiyan Aslam Qureshi


All having Office at Shop No. 109,


Satra Plaza, Plot No. 19/20,


Sector No.19-D, Palm Beach Road,


Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. ….Opponents


BEFORE :


Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Hon’ble Presiding Member.


Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon’ble Member.


APPEARANCE :


For Complainant: : Adv. Vinod S. Sontakke


For Opponents No. 1 to 3 : Adv. Rajkumar Jagtap


For Opponents No. 4 & 5 : Ex- Parte


JUDGEMENT


(12/05/2026)

Petitioner Advocates:ADV.SONTAKKE ,Respondent Advocate:

Per: Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon’ble Member

1. The present Consumer Complaint No. CC/2022/04 filed by the complainants against Opponents under the provisions of Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2. The brief facts of the case of Complainant that she is a senior citizen as above in a joint family. The Complainant was searching a flat on the ownership basis for her in the vicinity of Navi Mumbai, and in the said process, in September 2013, the Complainant came into contact with Opponent No. 4, who introduced himself to be associate of Opponent No. 1, 2, 3 and also works under them as a supervisor. Opponent No. 4 dishonestly induced the Complainant by the false representation that Opponent No.1 has already started construction of the residential building by name as MEGA ATMOS, on Plot No. 117, Sector 18, Ulwe, Tal Panvel, Dist Raigad, Navi Mumbai. Opponent No. 4 has also represented that Opponent No.1 is an honest developer, who had undertaken the construction work in the association of Opponent No. 2 and 3, who are the directors of M/s. MEGA Group, a big company having several residential projects in the Navi Mumbai area. Opponent No. 5 works as account manager of the company of Opponent No. 1, 2, & 3.

3. Complainant stated that before coming into contact with Opponent No. 1, 2, & 3 she wanted to see the site and location and being inspired by Opponent No. 4's representation. After visiting the site she saw the signboard of MEGA Group, having its address mentioned in the title of the complaint, with the name of the building as "MEGA ATMOS". The signboard also was bearing the mobile no. of Opponent No. 2 and 3. After visiting the site and Opponents enticed the Complainant to purchase the flat in their building, therefore she decided to purchase Flat No. 701 adm. about 422 sq. ft carpet area on the top Floor as a 7-storey building to be constructed on Plot No. 117, Sector No.18, Ulwe Node, Tal Panvel, Dist - Raigad (hereinafter referred to as suit flat)

4. Complainant stated that the Opponent No. 4, immediately on the next day, took Complainant, in the office of Opponent No. 1, 2,& 3 and at that time all 3 Opponents were present in the office at Arenja Comer, Sector No. 17. Vashi which was the temporary office, as their office at Satra Plaza was under renovation. Opponent No. 1 disclosed himself as a proprietor of M/S. MEGA Realtors, who owns the land on the record of right. Opponent No. 1 represented that the entire finance investment for purchasing the plot was made by Opponent No. 2 and 3 who are directors of company M/s. MEGA Group, in support of which Complainant relies on the official website showing Opponent No. 2 and 3 as directors. In the first meeting the Opponents No. 1, 2, 3 self praised stating that they are established builders and honest in their process of transaction, and in the same fashion, Opponents No. 2 and 3 have also represented to be directors of M/s. MEGA Group, which is the company having many residential projects in Navi Mumbai and promised to the Complainant that she would not face an AD flats she would choose and also promised to handover the possession of suit flat in time.

5. Complainant stated that, the Complainant booked, one suit flat in their building known as MEGA ATMOS, and said suit flat is purchased by the Complainant from Opponent No. 1, 2, 3 at Rs. 40,50,180/-. Opponent represented to the Complainant that there is a huge demand for top floor i.e. 7th Floor and if Complainant pays substantial amount at the initial stage only, top floor flat can be allotted though at that stage only plinth/foundation work was going on and demanded full consideration of Rs. 40, 50,180/- at the time of booking only as Opponent came to know Complainant is very much keen to purchase top floor Flat No. 701.

6. The Complainant further stated that in pursuant to the negotiation, the Opponents asked the Complainant to pay Rs. 20, 00,000/- by Cash on 8/11/2013, at the office of the Opponents at Satra P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top