A developer's failure to deliver possession of a property by the agreed-upon date and the failure to provide promised common amenities constitutes a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

(Dated 04/06/2026)

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

1. The present Consumer Complaint No. CC/2019/765 filed by the complainant against Opponents under the provision of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The brief facts of the case of Complainant that the Opposite Party no. 1 is the company duly formed and registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and the Opposite Party no. 2 is the director of the Opposite Party no. 1 respectively, engaged into the business of construction of buildings, development and re-developments of plots, therefore, the Opposite Parties are the Promoters as under section 2 (1) (z) of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 .

3. Complainant submitted that, in the year 2011, he was searching a flat for his residential purpose and during the search for it, he came to know that Opposite Parties were developing a building named as "Brizo Residency" situated at situated at Bhjbal Wadi, Plot No.1, Ghatkopar Mankhurd Link Road, Shivaji Nagar Chowk, Mumbai-400 043 Land Being city survey no. 93, corresponding to CTS No.1 situated and lying at Deonar, Taluka Kurla Mumbai and at the time of enquiry, the Complainant was informed that the possession would be delivered to the flat purchaser by December, 2014.

4. The Complainant submitted that as their family was growing, there was a need of a bigger flat; therefore he had booked a flat bearing no. 1007 on 10th floor admeasuring 545 sq. ft. in building named "BRIZO RESIDENCY" situated at Bhibal Wadi. Plot No.1. Ghatkopar Mankhurd Link Road, Shivaji Nagar Chowk. Mumbai-400043, Land Being city survey no. 93 corresponding to CTS No.1 situated and lying at Deonar, Taluka Kurla Mumbai along with a car parking open space for agreed consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Complainant had paid sum of Rs.2, 57,600/- as the earnest amount and before execution and registration of the Agreement, as a stamp duty was paid to the Opposite Party. Accordingly, an Agreement for Sale dated 24/10/2011 was issued to the Complainant pertaining to the said flat.

5. The Complainant submitted that, agreement for Sale dated 24/10/2011 was executed & registered between the Complainant & the Opposite Parties. The possession of the Flat was handed over to the complainant without common amenities and the Respondent has taken extra payment for the extra facilities and amenities as per Fifth Schedule of the Agreement for Sale dated 24/10/2011, the Opposite parties were under contractual obligation to deliver the possession with the common amenities of the said on December, 2014 which was not provided by the opposite parties.

6. The complainant submitted that the compensation for leave and license was agreed to increase every year. The complainant was put to this financial loss due to Opposite Parties' deficiency in services. The complainant submitted that the Opposite Parties handed over the possession of the said flat on December, 2017 after lot of persuasion and follow ups, which has caused immense stress to the complainant. That there was the written letter sent to the Opposite Party and requested the opposite Parties for the Common Amenities but his letter was unheard by the Opposite Parties, therefore, the Complainant has sent notice through an advocate which was also received by the Opposite Parties but no reply.

7. That being aggrieved and harassed by the conduct of the Opposite Parties, he approached before Consumer Guidance Society of India. That the Opposite Parties has indulged into unfair trade practice by making unjust enrichment out