FINAL ORDER

(Dt.11/06/2026)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The Present Consumer Complaints is filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

FACTS OF COMPLAINT

2. The Complainants, seeking residential accommodation, approached the Opposite Parties (who operate as real estate developers and builders) regarding their upcoming project named 'ATLANTIS'. The project is situated on Final Plot No. 320, at Gaodevi Wadi, Mouje Panchpakhadi, Taluka & District Thane. On August 3, 2010, the Complainants entered into a formal Agreement for Sale with the Opposite Parties to purchase Flat No. B-401 (situated on the 4th floor), admeasuring a carpet area of approximately 425 sq. ft. The total mutually agreed contractual consideration value for the flat was fixed at Rs.31,21,800/- (Agreement Value).

3. On August 30, 2010, the said Agreement for Sale was formally executed, stamped, and duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances. To satisfy government mandates and legalise the transaction, the Complainants paid an additional Rs.1,38,690/- towards stamp duty and Rs.31,730/- towards registration fees. To finance this real estate purchase, the Complainants availed themselves of a formal Housing Loan from TJSB Sahakari Bank Limited (Panchpakhadi Branch). The loan was disbursed under Account Numbers SS-M/32559 and PRLNSS 5. Since the regular disbursement of construction instalments began, the Complainants have continuously and diligently repaid the monthly bank instalments. By the date of filing the initial complaint in March 2016, the Complainants had paid a staggering cumulative sum of Rs.25,97,094/- directly to the OPs. This financial consideration covers regular building stage instalments, relevant service taxes, and miscellaneous charges demanded by the OPs from time to time.

4. As Per Clause No. 8 of the legally binding registered Agreement for Sale, the Opposite Parties categorically promised and committed to complete construction and hand over vacant, unencumbered, peaceful possession of Flat No.B-401 to the Complainants on or before October 2012. However, the Opposite Parties failed to meet this deadline. From November 2012 onwards, the Complainants made numerous personal visits to the OPs' administrative office at Teen Haath Naka and to the active construction site to check on the development progress and ascertain the reasons for the sudden stoppage of work. Mr. Haresh Daulatani (OP No. 1), despite being the managing partner and accountable person, consistently avoided meeting the Complainants. Instead, his representative and marketing manager, Mr. Sanjay Bagul (OP No. 2), repeatedly offered vague, unsubstantiated reasons and false oral promises, asserting that "possession would be handed over within six months to a year". None of these claims materialised.

5. On March 19, 2014, the OPs issued a written communication to the Complainants citing flimsy, legally untenable reasons for the protracted delay in handing over possession. By March 2016, the building structure stood half-complete (constructed up to the 13th floor, showing roughly 60% of structural completion). All active civil work had completely stopped at the site for an extended period, leaving no reasonable expectation of delivery. Compounding this gross deficiency of service, the OPs engaged in unfair trade practices after the filing of this consumer dispute. On April 18, 2016, the OPs issued a demand letter aggressively claiming an escalation cost of Rs.8,28,750/-. They attempted to justify this surcharge by pointing to on-going legal bottlenecks involving the project land. This exorbitant financial demand was entirely outside the scope of the registered agreement and directly violated Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963. Consequently, the Complainants engaged an independent valuer, M/s. B.N. Mulye & Associates, who compiled an official real estate evaluation report on August 8,