State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.Anju W/O.Dr.Rajesh Mundhada vs M/S.Waghmare Developers Through Its ... on 26 November, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/CB2/27/CC/93/2016
DR.ANJU W/O.DR.RAJESH MUNDHADA
PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O.MUNDHADA BUILDING,MAHAL,EAST GANDHISAGAR
ROAD,NAGPUR,MAHARASHTRA.
DR.RAJESH S/O.GIRDHARDAS MUNDHADA
PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O.MUNDHADA BUILDING,MAHAL,EAST GANDHISAGAR
ROAD,NAGPUR,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus
M/S.WAGHMARE DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI PANKAJ CHADRAKANT
WAGHMARE
PRESENT ADDRESS - FLAT NO-402,4TH FLOOR,SAI ANKUR APARTMENT,NEAR ARNEJA
HEART HOSPITAL,RAMDASPETH,NAGPUR,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
NARENDRA G.JETHA (Advocate)
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
NONE
DATED: 26/11/2025
ORDER
(Delivered On 26/11/2025) Per Mrs Kalyani Kapse, Hon'ble Presiding Member
1. Present Complaint is filled by the Complainant namely, Dr Anju and Dr Rajesh Mundhada against the opponent namely M/s Waghmare, Builder and Developer under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (In shot "The Act")
2. The factual matrix of the Consumer Complaint is as follows- The Complainants are husband and wife. They are searching for good accommodation for them in the year 2013.
3. The non applicant is a builder and developer and having his proprietary firm under the name and style of M/s Waghmare Developers. Shri Pankaj Waghmare is its proprietor. The Non applicant having business of purchase of plots/lands and then constructed multi storied building thereon and sale the same to prospective purchasers/buyers. The opposite party accordingly floated the scheme by publishing brochure and advertisement etc. Complainant decided to purchase the flat No. 601 on 6th floor and thereafter the Non applicant executed an agreement of sale on 21/10/2014.
4. Notices were issued. OP appeared and filed the Written Version (W.S.) In order to substantiate the claim, the Complainant has adduced his Rejoinder cum Evidence Affidavit and contended that this complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. We have carefully gone through the Written notes of arguments filed by both the parties.
5. Heard Mr. Narendra Jetha, learned advocate for the Complaints No.1 and 2 and None present for the Opposite Party at the time of final hearing.
6. We have also carefully gone through the documents and papers placed on record. On the basis of the rival contentions of the parties along with material on record following points arises for our determination against which we have recorded our findings with reasons as follows-
Sr. No. Points for determination Findings
01 Whether the Complainant has proved In the affirmative.
that he is a Consumer of the Opponent?
02. Whether Complainant has proved that In the affirmative there is Deficiency in Service under section 2 (1)(g) and Unfair Trade Practice under section 2(1)r under the Act on the part of the Opponent?
03. Whether Complainant is entitled for the In the affirmative relief claimed?
04. What order? As per final order REASONS
7. As to Point No. 1- Present Complaint is filled by the Complainant namely, Dr Anju and Dr Rajesh Mundhada against the opponent namely M/s Waghmare, Builder and Developer under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (In shot "The Act") The non applicant is a builder and developer and having his proprietary firm under the name and style of M/s Waghmare Developers. Shri Pankaj Waghmare is its proprietor. The Non applicant having business of purchase of plots/lands and then constructed multi storied building thereon and sale the same to prospective purchasers/buyers. The non the opposite party accordingly floated the scheme by publishing brochure and advertisement etc. Complainant decided to purchase the flat No. 601 on 6th floor and thereafter applicant executed an agreement of sale on 21/10/2014. We have carefully gone through the receipts and documents placed on record. And find that there is relationship between Consumer and Service Provider. Hence on this ground no hesitation to hold that Complainants are Consumers. So in our findings we held Point No.1 as Affirmative.
8. As to Point No. 2- Accordingly sale-purchase talk took place between the complainants and non-applicant and finalized the said transaction as well as sell consideration amount etc. there by the non-applicant agreed to sell the said Flat to the complainants for total valuable consideration of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- and complainants agreed to purchase the same on said consideration amount. Thereafter the complainant paid Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Lakhs Only) i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- by each complainant to the Non-applicant on 20-08-14 by Cheque and same has been encashed by non-applicant. That thereafter the non-applicant executed an agreement of sale on 21-10-2014, in favour of complainant in respect of above said Flat No. 601, of 6th floor of the building "Parijat Height" Nagpur. The non-applicant as per said Agreement of sale dated 21-10-2014, agreed to deliver the actual physical possession of the said flat in vacant condition at the time of registration of sale-deed. Complainant has to bear the tremendous losses because of the O.P. which amounts to Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the O.P. So in our findings we held Point No.2 as Affirmative.
9. As to Point No.3 and 4- The non-applicant is having plot property bearing Plot No. 7, admeasuring area 561.129 Sq. Mtr. having Sheet No. 31/34, City Survey No. 914, situated at Hill Road, Gandhi Nagar, Ward No. 73, Mouza-Ambazari, Nagpur. That the non-applicant get sanctioned the Building Plan from Deputy Engineer, Town Planning Department of Nagpur Municipal Corporation Nagpur vide Building Permit No. 157/BP/Ambazari/TP/NMC/130, of dated 19/03/2013, for construction of multistoried building residential Flat Scheme on said plot No. 7. That as per said sanctioned plan the non-applicant get sanctioned of construction of total Seven residential Flats/Apartments on said plot No. 7, thereby construct One Flat on One Floor, it means Seven Flats on Seven Floors. The non-applicant intends to construct the said construction of building on the said plot No. 7, by giving the name to said Flat Scheme as "Parijat Height". That the non-applicant sub-sequently also executed a registered Deed of Declaration under Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act 1970, thereby subjected the entire property /buildings of "Parijat Height". The said Deed of Declaration duly registered at document No. 3379/14, on 01/10/14, in the officer of Sub-registrar No.1, Nagpur. That the non-applicant accordingly floated the scheme by publishing brochure and advertisement, etc. thereby stated to purchase the flats. The non-applicant in said brochure mentioned the type and nature of construction work and its quality as well as facility to Flat and common facility provided in said Apartments and building to said prospective purchaser.
10. The learned advocate for the complainants submitted that complaints were also searching for accommodation Flat/Apartment and they came to know about the above said construction of Flat Scheme which the non-applicant going to construct on above said plot No7, at Mouza-Ambazari. Thereafter the complainant contacted to the non-applicant and made enquiry about the construction work its quality type of work, facility and amenities and common facility and quality of material used as well as time period of construction. That the non-applicant told to the complainants that he shall do and carry out the entire construction work of each Flat as well as of the building as per brochure which shows the entire details of work, its quality and quantity as well as facility and amenity. The non-applicant gave assurance that the entire work, its quality be done as per said brochure. That looking quality of work facility and amenity etc. The complainants decided to purchase the Flat/Apartment No. 601, on 6th Floor, having built-up area 205.20 sq. Mtr., including electric meter, electric fitting and also fixtures & furniture, constructed on plot No. 7, of the said building known as "Parijat Height" along with 14% undivided share and interest in said land of Plot No. 7, having area 561.129 Sq. Mtr. situated at Gandhinagar Ward No.73, Sheet No. 31/34, City Survey No. 914, of Mouza-Ambazari, Nagpur, Tah. & Dist.- Nagpur. Accordingly sale-purchase talk took place between the complainants and non-applicant and finalized the said transaction as well as sell consideration amount etc., etc., there by the non-applicant agreed to sell the said Flat to the complainants for total valuable consideration of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- and complainants agreed to purchase the same on said consideration amount.
11. Thereafter the Complainant paid Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rs. Twenty Lakhs Only) i.e. Rs.10,00,000/-by each complainant to the opposite party on 20/08/2014 by Cheque and same has been encashed by non-applicant. Thereafter the non- applicant executed an agreement of sale on 21/10/2014, in favour of complainant in respect of above said Flat No. 601, of 6th floor of the building "Parijat Height"
Gandhinagar, Nagpur. The non-applicant as per said Agreement of sale dated 21/10/2014, agreed to deliver the actual physical possession of the said flat in vacant condition at the time of registration of sale-deed.
12. Thereafter on 30/12/2014, the non-applicant executed sale-deed in favour of complainants by receiving the entire sale consideration of RS.1,04,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore Four Lakhs Only) which in detailed mentioned in said sale-deed in respect of The details of said flat No. 601, mentioned in said sale-deed. The Flat No. 601, 6th floor of said building known as "Parijat Height". said sale-deed got registered in the Office of Sub-registrar, Nagpur-4 at document No.6/15 on 01/01/2015. It is pertinent to note that as per Agreement and also as per sale-deed the non-applicant agreed to handover the vacant physical possession of said Flat No. 601, to the complainant at the time registration of Sale-deed. But the non- applicant told to the complainant that due to some labour problem some work of said Flat No. 601, as well as of the building has not been completed and same be completed within four months and then he shall hand over its possession to them. As there was good and co-ordinal relation as well as the complainants having faith on non-applicant so they agreed for the same Flat No. 601 as well as "Parijat Height" has not been completed nor facility and amenities are installed/provided in the building. It is pertinent to note that in spite of passing period of 4 months work was not completed. Therefore complaint was constrained to send legal notice to the opposite party. They have received the same but not replied.
13. There after complainants hold joint meeting with opposite party near about April 2016. Complainant further completed the work with the help of architect. Complainant started incomplete construction work of their flat No.601. Learned advocate for the complainant draws our attention towards that in spite of the assurance and promise by the opposite party they had not completed the construction work as well as not installed or provided any facility and amenities. There after complainant again on 11/07/2016 send notice to the opponent.
14. It is specifically denied by the Opposite party in its reply that the said flat was agreed to be sold for consideration of Rs.1,04,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore Four Lakhs Only). Infact it was agreed between the complainants and opposite party that the complainants would pay total consideration of Rs. 1,72,00,000/-Rs(One Crore Seventy Two Lakhs only) However it is submitted that at the time of execution of the agreement itself the Complainant No. 2 had requested the Opposite Party to show the Consideration of the said flat at Rs. 1,04,00,000/- as he wanted to take loan from the bank, he made a specific request to the Opposite Party that if the entire consideration was shown in the agreement he would be required to pay more Stamp Duty and he wanted to save the same. The Opposite Party thus reluctantly agreed to show less consideration in the sale deed and the same was shown as 1,04,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Four Lakhs only).
15. The complainants are well aware of the said fact which they are trying to suppress by taking advantage of the consideration mentioned in the sale deed executed in favour of Complainant by the Opposite Party. It is further submitted that the complainants did not pay the entire consideration at the time of execution of the sale deed as agreed between the complainants and the Opposite Party i.e. Rs 1,72,00,000/- (Rs One Crore Seventy Two Lakhs only) but in all they paid Rs 42,00,000/- (Rs. Fourty Two Lakhs only) less than the agreed consideration. In this respect it is submitted that the complainants paid Rs. 26,00,000/- (RS. Twenty Six Lakhs only) in cash at time of booking the said flat to the Opposite Party and promise to pay the balance Consideration of Rs. 1,46,00,000/- at the time of execution of the sale deed. However the complainants paid 1,04,00,000/- to the Opposite Party at the time of registration of the sale deed l.e. on 01/01/2015. It is submitted that though the sale deed was prepared and executed on 30/12/2014 and the same was registered on 0/.01/2015, leaving balance of Rs. 42,00,000/- and requested the Opposite Party that they would pay the same within three months from the date of execution and registration of the sale deed which the complainants are liable to pay to the Opposite Party. It is further submitted that the Complainants also executed a separate agreement in favour of the Opposite Party in which they acknowledged the liability to pay Rs. 42 lakhs only to the Opposite Party within three months and also made specific promise to pay the said sum to the Opposite Party.
16. In the present matter the complainant requested the Opposite Party as stated above that the Opposite Party should do the interior work in the said apartment No. 601 as they wanted to get it done through their interior decorator and requested the Opposite Party to reduce the amount which he would have required to spent for interior work. The Opposite Party thus agreed to reduced a sum of Rs. 8,12,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakh Twelve Thousand only) from the balance consideration of Rs. 42 Lakhs, leaving balance of Rs. 33,88,000/-, which Complainants are liable to pay to the Opposite Party.
17. Therefore the Opposite Party agreed to deduct the an amount of Rs. 8,12,000/-, and the complainants agreed to pay balance amount of Rs. 33,88,000/-. It is thus submitted that the physical possession of the flat was handed over to the Complainant on the date of execution of sale deed in order the enable the Complainants to carry out the work of flooring, Kitchen Fittings, bathroom and toilet fittings, all the doors, P.O.P, Painting and electric fittings as per their choice. However the complainants did not pay the said sum of Rs. 33,88,000/- till this date and when ever Opposite Party demanded the said amount from the Complainants they used to show the financial restrain and use to request the Opposite party, to bear with them.
18. That the non-applicant in para No. 7 of his written statement wrongly stated that complainants agreed to pay total consideration of Rs. 1,72,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore Seventy-Two Lakhs only) as alleged. On the contrary non-applicant himself sold the Flat No. 601, for total sale consideration of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore Four Lakhs only) and entire said total sale consideration amount of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore Four Lakhs only) paid by the complainants and same has been received by the non-applicant and thereafter he has executed registered Sale-deed dated 30/12/2014, in favour of complainants.
19. Perused the record the Complainant has prayed for to allow the complaint of complainants thereby direct the non-applicant to installed lift, railings on stair case, vehicle parking facility, main gate doors, putting and painting of entire building of "Parijat Height" from internal and external side, common electricity facility and all other common facility and amenities as per broucher.
20. Further direct the non-applicant to bring occupancy certificate, N.O.C. of fire, and other required certificate from concern department. Direct the non-applicant to complete the above said entire work as stated in para No. A to C of para No.24, within a period of Two month and handover the possession of said Flat No. 601, forthwith after its completion as per brusher.
21. Further direct the non-applicant to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month from 01/01/2015 till the date of handing over the possession of said Flat No. 601 to the complainant towards non using of said Flat by complainant and payment of interest made by complainants to the Bank for loan taken by them to purchase said Flat. Further direct non-applicant to pay Rs. 4,57,564/-towards electrification work of said Flat No. 601, which complainant paid to Padole Electrical Company. Further direct the non-applicant to pay Rs. 3,24,405/- towards marble and granite which the petitioner purchased from their own funds for flooring of said Flat No. 601.
22. Further direct the non-applicant to pay Rs.1,25,000/- towards P.O.P. ceiling work of said Flat No. 601, which paid by complaint. Further direct the non-applicant to Rs.6,59,238/- towards bathroom feting and other material of said Flat No. 601, which paid by complainants to Mayura tiles.
23. Further direct the non-applicant to pay the amount for putting and painting as well as kitchen and other thinks which the complainants as now getting done of said Flat No.601 under the supervision of Architect Rohit Gupta which incurred by the complainants for getting ready the said Flat No.601. To direct non-applicant to pay Rs. 2,00,000/-to the complainants towards mental pain and agony and direct the respondent to pay Rs. 10,000/-towards Notice charges and Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
24. It is observed that during the pendency of the Complaint, opponent had completed part A and C of the prayer clause. It is observed that opposite party has executed an agreement of sale on 21/10/2014 in favour of the complainant in respect of above said flat No. 601 and thereafter on 30/12/2014 opposite party executed Sale Deed in favour of the complainant by receiving the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- (One Crore Four Lakhs Only) which is in detailed mention in the registered sale deed in respect of flat No.601. The opposite party in its reply specifically stated that it was agreed between the complainants and opposite party that the complaints would pay total consideration of Rs.1,72,00,000/- (One Crore Seventy Two Lacs only). At the time of execution of the agreement itself the Complainant No. 2 had requested the Opposite Party to show the Consideration of the said flat at Rs. 1,04,00,000/- as he wanted to take loan from the bank, he made a specific request to the Opposite Party that if the entire consideration was shown in the agreement he would be required to pay more Stamp Duty and he wanted to save the same. But the opposite party failed to prove the same.
25. In the reply opposite parties specification that the complainants also executed a separate agreement in favour of the opposite party in which the acknowledge the liability to pay Rs. 42, 42 lacs only to the opposite party within 3 months and also made specific promise to pay the said sum to the opposite party. But perused the record O.P. failed to prove this. We have carefully gone through the copy of sale deed and other papers on record including receipts of payment made by the complainant.
26. It is specifically observed that Complainant had engaged an architect Shri Rohit Gupta, of Nagpur and he inspected the flat and entire building and prepared note sheet of incomplete work which was shown to the op. but Opposite party avoided to complete the same. Therefore the Complainant get started the work of his flat under the supervision of architect in the month of November 2015. Hence the Complainant's prayer Clause (D) for Rs. 50,000/- per month will not be taken into consideration as the flat was into possession of the Complainant for completion of incomplete work.
27. In the light of above discussions we are inclined to partly allowed the Complaint and we are of the considered view that the complainant is consumer of non-applicant and the non-applicant had failed to complete the entire construction work of Flat No. 601 and failed to provide basic amenities like occupancy certificate and N.O.C. of fire and other required certificate from concern department of the said building even after passing of eight years and had not installed and provided all the facilities and amenities as agreed by him as per brochure and the non-applicant had failed to provide the services and hence there is deficiency in service. Hence the complainants are entitled to get compensation under different heads against the non-applicant and non-applicant is liable and responsible for the same. Hence we pass the following order.
//ORDER//
1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is declared that the Opposite Party (Builder/Developer) has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by failing to provide the agreed amenities/facilities, as per the terms of the Agreement.
3. The Opposite Party is directed to complete the Project in all respects with all agreed amenities to the Complainant.
4. The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation to the Complainant Rs. 4,57,564/- towards electrification work of said Flat No. 601, which the complainant paid to Padole Electrical Company.
5. The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation to the Complainant Rs. 3,24,405/- towards marble and granite which the petitioner purchased from their own funds for flooring of said Flat No. 601.
6. The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation to the Complainant Rs. 1,25,000/- towards P.O.P. ceiling work of said Flat No. 601, which paid by complaint.
7. The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation to the Complainant Rs.6,59,238/- towards bathroom feting and other material of said Flat No. 601, which paid by complainants to Mayura tiles.
8. The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation to the Complainant Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment.
9. The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation to the Complainant Rs. 50,00/- towards litigation costs.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both parties free of cost.
..................J KALYANI KAPSE PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J SHAILA D. WANDHARE MEMBER