STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No.SC/27/CC/14/126

1. Mr. Sharat V. Rao, 2. Mrs. Surekha S. Rao, Both R/at – Flat no. 1605/1606, City of Joy “Sparkle”, Jatashankar Dosa Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400080. ..….... Complainants Versus

1. M/s. Runwal Constructions, Runwal & Omkar Esquare, 5th floor, Off Eastern Express Highway, Sion Chunabhatti Signal, Mumbai – 400022.

2. Mr. S. S. Runwal, Partner of Runwal Constructions, Office at – Runwal & Omkar Esquare, 5th floor, Off Eastern Express Highway, Sion Chunabhatti Signal, Mumbai – 400022. ....... Opposite Parties BEFORE:

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

For Complainant : Adv. Joshi, Adv. Gharat For Opponent: Adv. Marathe

JUDGMENT

(Date : 18/03/2026)

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

1. The complainants, Mr. Sharad V. Rao and Mrs. Surekha S. Rao, have 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 opposite parties who are developers of a housing project.

2. The complainants state that the opposite parties launched a residential project known as “Runwal Infinity”. Relying upon the representations and brochure issued by the opposite parties, the complainants booked Flat No. 902 in Building No. A-1, Runwal Infinity admeasuring about 1016 sq. ft. carpet area (saleable area about 1505 sq. ft.), situated at L.B.S. Marg, Mulund (West), Mumbai for a total consideration of about Rs. 47,78,375/-.

3. It is the case of the complainants that they paid part consideration towards the said flat from time to time. Initially, they paid Rs. 51,000/- through cheque on 27.10.2005 as token amount for booking of the flat and the opposite parties issued receipt dated 29.10.2005. Thereafter, the complainants paid further instalments including Rs. 7,04,675/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- through cheque in December 2005, for which the opposite parties also issued receipts dtd 6/12/2005 and 5/12/2005. The opposite party by letter dtd. 08/09/2010 admitted booking of the flat and accepted Rs. 9,55,675 /-.

4. According to the complainants, despite receipt of Rs. 9,55,675/- the aforesaid substantial amount, the opposite parties failed to execute the Agreement for Sale after receipt of more than 20% of the total consideration amount. The opposite parties failed to comply with section 4 of MOFA 1963.They neither completed the construction of the building nor handed over possession of the booked flat. The complainants repeatedly approached the opposite parties and requested them to execute the agreement and proceed with the project; however, the opposite parties did not comply with the said requests.

5. The complainants further state that by letter dated 08.09.2010, the opposite parties informed them that the land on which the project was to be constructed had been declared as private forest land, due to which the Municipal Corporation had issued a stop-work notice dtd 18/05/2006 and the matter had been taken before higher courts. On that ground the opposite parties expressed their inability to commit any time frame for completion of the project and sought to cancel, recind and revoke the booking and called upon the complainants to collect the refund amount from them and that the complainants shall have no right title and interest in the said flat.

6. The complainants have stated that with malafide and dishonest intention, the Opposite Parties issued a letter dated 8th September 2010 to the complainants to take undue advantage of the situation of the market price which had sky rocketed and opposite parties are taking undue advantage of the said high rate which is more than double the price of the flat booked by the complainants ,thereby seeking to stop them from pursuing their claim in respect of the flat and purported to cancel the booking. The complainants contend that the said letter is il