State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Savita Santosh Kolte vs M/S. Radiance Properties (India) Ltd. on 18 November, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA AT MUMBAI
Consumer Complaint No.CC/15/87, CC/15/88, CC/15/89,
CC/15/90,CC/15/91, CC/15/92,CC/15/231.
1] Shri. Vasant Chennappa Salian
Age 40 Years, Occ: Service,
Residing at-504,
Seawood Garden CHS Ltd.,
Plot no.4/6, Sector-17,
Palm Beach Road, Sanpada,
Navi Mumbai. ....Complainant in CC/15/87
2] Shri. Narendra Chandrakant Kolekar
Age 44 years, Occ: Service,
Residing at - Flat No.a-102,
Manibhadra Co-Operative Housing Society
Ltd., Plot No.104, Sector - 16,
Koperkhairane,
Navi Mumbai - 400709. ....Complainant in CC/15/88
3] Mrs. Savita Santosh Kolte
Age 33 years, Occ: Housewife
Residing at - Flat No.1102,
Laxcon Tower Co-Operative Housing Society
Ltd., Plot No.4A, Sector-14,
Palm beach Road, Nerul,
Navi Mumbai - 400706. ....Complainant in CC/15/89
CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 2 of 18
4] Mrs. Bharti Anil Kolte
Age 41 years, Occ: Service
Residing at - Flat No.A-04,
Kaveri Co-Operative Housing Society
Ltd., Plot No.63, Sector-17,Vashi,
Navi Mumbai - 400 703. ....Complainant in CC/15/90
5] Shri. Sunil Ramchandra Teltumbade
Age 46 Years, Occ: Service,
Residing at - D-6-3,
Sahyog Co-Operative Housing Society,
Ltd., Sector - 48A, Nerul,
Navi Mumabi - 400706. ....Complainant in CC/15/91
6] Shri. Sanjay Jagannath Bhalchim
Age 45 Years, Occ: Service,
Residing at - D-16-7, 1st Floor,
Saidham Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.
Sector - 48, Seawiidsm Berykm
Navi Mumabi - 400706. ....Complainant in CC/15/92
7] Shri. Heerabai Kolte
Age 73 Years, Occ: Housewife,
Residing at - Flat No.A-04,
Kaveri Co-Operative Housing Society
Ltd., Plot No.63, Sector - 17, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai - 400703. ...Complainant in CC/15/231
PVM+RRP
CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 3 of 18
Versus
1] M/s. Radiance Properties (India)
Limited.
Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956,
Having Office-905/906, Leval-9,
Maithili's Signet, Plot No.39/A,
Sector-30A, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai - 410 705.
2] Shri. Vijay Premji Patel
Age Not Known - Occu: Business
Director of M/s. Radiance
Properties (India) Limited.
Having Office-905/906, Leval-9,
Maithili's Signet, Plot No.39/A,
Sector-30A, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai - 410 705. ... Opposite Parties in all the Cases
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma : Presiding
Member
Hon'ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi : Member
For the Complainant : Advocate Rajkumar S. Jagtap
For Opposite Party : Advocate Mohammad Shine K.
PVM+RRP
CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 4 of 18
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Date 18-11-2025
Per Hon'ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi - Member :
1. The Complainants have filed these group complaints under Section 17 of the consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2. The Facts of each complaint are that the Complainants are residing at the address mentioned in the cause title . The Opposite Party No.1 is a company engaged in construction and real estate development under the name M/s. Radiance Properties (India) Limited, formerly known as M/s. Retroscape Infrastructure Limited, and Opposite Party No.2 is its Director responsible for day-to-day affairs. The Opposite Parties are the builders and developers of a residential project known as "Radiance Splendor"
situated at Plot Nos. 64 & 64A, Sector-5, Ulwe, Navi Mumbai.
3. The Complainants contended that they were searching for residential premises for their family and, upon receiving information about the said project, visited the office of the Opposite Parties. They were informed that the project comprised Ground + 7 floors consisting of 76 flats and 21 shops, and that the possession of the flats would be handed over on or before May 2014.
4. After negotiations, the Opposite Parties agreed to sell the respective flat to the Complainants for agreed consideration. which the Complainants agreed to purchase for their bona fide residential PVM+RRP CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 5 of 18 use. Relying on the assurances and demands raised from time to time, the Complainants paid the said amount by way of various cheques to the Opposite Parties. The amounts were duly credited to the Opposite Parties' account and the Opposite Parties further demanded stamp duty and registration charges. The Complainants paid the same, and the Agreement for Sale was registered between both the parties.
5. The Complainants submits that as per Clause 13 of the Agreement for Sale, the Opposite Parties were obligated to hand over possession on or before May 2014. However, during a site visit in December 2013, the Complainants noticed that construction was not progressing as per the agreement and, upon inquiry, the Opposite Parties merely gave verbal assurances. As the Opposite Parties failed to complete construction or hand over possession, the Complainants issued a legal notice dated 24/03/2014 calling upon the Opposite Parties to comply with their obligations, but no compliance was made.
6. The Complainants alleged that the Opposite Parties have failed to fulfil their contractual and statutory obligations and are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice The Complainants submitted that they have suffered mental agony due to withholding of possession despite payment of substantial consideration, and therefore filed the present complaint in January 2015 when possession was not handed over.
PVM+RRP CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 6 of 18
7. On 17/10/2024 the complainants filed a pursis that during pendency of the complaint the Opposite Parties obtained Occupancy Certificate on 11/04/2019 and handed over possession of the flats after receiving the balance payment from the Complainants. Accordingly Submitted that prayer (b) regarding possession is not pressed, but the remaining reliefs are pursued. The Complainants had prayed that Rs.2,00,000/- be given as a compensation for delayed possession, mental agony and harassment along with the litigation cost.
8. On 11/02/2015 these complaints were admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite Parties Appeared and filed its written version and had submited that they are filing the Written Version through Opposite Party No.2, who is the present Director of Opposite Party No.1 and duly authorized by the Board Resolution to represent and sign on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Parties had contended that the Complaint is false, frivolous, misleading, suppression of material facts and not maintainable in law, and has been filed only with malafide intention to pressurize and harass the Opposite Parties to extract reliefs to which the Complainant is not legally entitled. The Opposite parties had submitted that the present matter ,though ostensibly is an agreement for sale of a residential Apartment ,but in reality it is a cover for a loan transaction which could not be legally executed between the complainant and opposite party . Thus the Grievance of the complainants is a commercial investment transaction, hence the Complainant is not a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, PVM+RRP CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 7 of 18 1986 and the dispute does not fall within the meaning of "consumer dispute" under Section 2(1)(e).
9. The Opposite Party No.2 had Submitted that 99% shareholding of Opposite Party No.1 was held by Late Shri Ramesh Patel, who passed away on 03/04/2013, and thereafter his wife inherited the shareholding and became Director. As a result of his untimely death, the business operations were severely affected, including delays in project execution. The said death was an unforeseen Act of God, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. Clauses 8 and 13 of the registered Agreement for Sale specifically exempt the Opposite Parties from liability for delay due to reasons beyond control.
10. It is Contended that the land on which the subject project was constructed was mortgaged to Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd, and the Complainants were fully aware of the same, which is also mentioned in the Agreement for Sale. Operational disruption after the death of the previous Director also caused issues with suppliers, lenders and project schedules, affecting construction timelines.
11. It is further contended that, the Complainants are not flat purchasers for residential purpose but investors for commercial gain. Clause 52 of the registered Agreement for Sale clearly states that "the Purchaser intends to purchase the said flat as an investor and intends to sell the flat within one year from the date of agreement." This clause completely falsifies the Complaint which claims the flat was booked for residence of his big family. Thus, PVM+RRP CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 8 of 18 the Complainant does not fall within the scope of "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. It is Further submitted that the delay in completion did not cause any loss or mental agony to the Complainants, because the value of their investment has multiplied significantly, and the Complaint is only a device to obtain additional returns under the guise of "liquidated damages". Therefore, the reliefs claimed are wholly unjustified. The Opposite Parties had denied all the allegations of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, restrictive trade practice or breach of statutory obligations. There has been no intentional delay, negligence, harassment or malafide act, and the project delay was completely beyond control due to unforeseen circumstances. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
13. The complainants filed their Affidavit of evidence and written notes of arguments. Though several opportunites were given to Opposite Parties to file their Affadavit of evidence and written notes of arguments they failed to file the same on record .The Opposite Party after giving several opportunities failed to argue the said matter. Hence we heard advocate for complainants.
14. The Learned Advocate for the complainant had Produced a Common chart in tabular form containing the essential particulars of each complaint ,such as details of Flat & area , date of Agreement ,Agreement Value ,consideration amount paid , Payment on Possession , service & VAT Tax Paid ,Legal notice date .Since these are group matters arising out of the same project and involving identical issues for the sake of clarity and convenience PVM+RRP CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 9 of 18 the particulars of the individual Complaints are complied and set out in the following table :
CC/15/87 - Shri. Vasant Chennappa Sallian The Complainant Mr. Vasant Chennapa Salian For his residence had booked a flat No.A-402, 560.17 sq.ft. For total consideration of Rs.24,70,000/-. Out of the total consideration amount the complainant had paid Rs.24,10,000/-
Both the parties executed an Registered agreement For sale Dtd. 29/05/2013.
As per the pursis filed on record by the advocate for complainant the Opposite parties obtained the Occupation certificate of the building from CIDCO on 11/04/2019 and thereafter on request of complainant had handed over possession of the flat to the complainant after receiving the balance consideration.
CC/15/88 - Shri. Narendra Chandrakant Kolekar The Complainant Shri. Narendra Chandrakant Kolekar For his residence had booked a flat No.C- 204, 548.18 sq.ft. For total consideration of Rs.28,62,250/-. Out of the total consideration amount the complainant had paid Rs.27,80,000/- Both the parties executed an Registered agreement For sale Dtd. 03/08/2012.
PVM+RRP CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 10 of 18 As per the pursis filed on record by the advocate for complainant the Opposite parties obtained the Occupation certificate of the building from CIDCO on 11/04/2019 and thereafter on request of complainant had handed over possession of the flat to the complainant after receiving the balance consideration.
CC/15/89 - Mrs. Savita Santosh Kolte The Complainant Mrs. Savita Santosh Kolte For his residence had booked a flat No.A-302, 560 sq.ft. For total consideration of Rs.24,81,000/-. Out of the total consideration amount the complainant had paid Rs.24,56,000/- Both the parties executed an Registered agreement For sale Dtd. 29/05/2013. As per the pursis filed on record by the advocate for complainant the Opposite parties obtained the Occupation certificate of the building from CIDCO on 11/04/2019 and thereafter on request of complainant had handed over possession of the flat to the complainant after receiving the balance consideration.
CC/15/90 - Mrs. Bharti Anil Kolte The Complainant Shri. Mrs. Bharti Anil Kolte For his residence had booked a flat No.C-301, 549.09 sq.ft. For total consideration of Rs.27,19,000/-. Out of the total consideration PVM+RRP CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 11 of 18 amount the complainant had paid Rs.27,00,000/- Both the parties executed an Registered agreement For sale Dtd. 29/05/2013.
As per the pursis filed on record by the advocate for complainant the Opposite parties obtained the Occupation certificate of the building from CIDCO on 11/04/2019 and thereafter on request of complainant had handed over possession of the flat to the complainant after receiving the balance consideration.
CC/15/91 - Shri.Sunil Ramchandra Teltumbade The Complainant Shri.Sunil Ramchandra Teltumbade For his residence had booked a flat No.B-302, 604.55 sq.ft. For total consideration of Rs.35,99,000/-. Out of the total consideration amount the complainant had paid Rs.35,50,000/- Both the parties executed an Registered agreement For sale Dtd. 08/08/2012.
As per the pursis filed on record by the advocate for complainant the Opposite parties obtained the Occupation certificate of the building from CIDCO on 11/04/2019 and thereafter on request of complainant had handed over possession of the flat to the complainant after receiving the balance consideration.
CC/15/92 - Shri.Sanjay Jagannath Bhalchim The Complainant Shri. Sanjay Jagannath Bhalchim For his residence had booked a flat No. A-
PVM+RRP CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 12 of 18 401, 545.88 sq.ft. For total consideration of Rs.35,59,750/-. Out of the total consideration amount the complainant had paid Rs.32,50,000/- Both the parties executed an Registered agreement For sale Dtd. 08/08/2012.
As per the pursis filed on record by the advocate for complainant the Opposite parties obtained the Occupation certificate of the building from CIDCO on 11/04/2019 and thereafter on request of complainant had handed over possession of the flat to the complainant after receiving the balance consideration.
CC/15/231 - Smt. Heerabai Kolte The Complainant Smt. Heerabai Kolte For his residence had booked a flat No. C-501, 548.17 sq.ft. For total consideration of Rs.24,81,000/-. Out of the total consideration amount the complainant had paid Rs.24,25,000/- Both the parties executed an Registered agreement For sale Dtd. 29/05/2013. As per the pursis filed on record by the advocate for complainant the Opposite parties obtained the Occupation certificate of the building from CIDCO on 11/04/2019 and thereafter on request of complainant had handed over possession of the flat to the complainant after receiving the balance consideration.
PVM+RRP CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 13 of 18
15. We have carefully gone through the Complaints ,Affadavit of evidence and written notes of Arguments filed by the advocate for complainants and Written version filed on record by Opposite Parties. We have also heard the submissions Advanced by the learned advocate For the complainants. On the basis, following issues arise for our determination.
Sr.no. Issues Findings
1 Whether the Complainants are IN
"Consumers" within the meaning of Affirmative Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service In by the Opposite Parties? Affirmative
3. What order? As per final order REASONS As to Issue No.1:
16. The Opposite Parties have contended that the present transaction is not a residential purchase but an investment or a disguised loan transaction. They rely upon Clause 52 of the registered Agreement for Sale, wherein the Complainant is shown to have declared that he is purchasing the flat as an investor. The Opposite Parties had also alleged that the Complainant was an investor who advanced funds to the then Director for commercial PVM+RRP CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 14 of 18 returns, and that the Agreement for Sale was only a "legal camouflage". They also alleged that investors wanted appreciation in value and were not concerned with possession. However, the Opposite Parties have not produced any partnership agreement, any loan agreement, any communication indicating investment intent, or any documentary proof that the Complainant acted as an investor. The registered Agreement for Sale, the payment schedule, cheque payments, and the registered contractual obligations all strongly support the Complainant's case of a genuine flat purchase.
17. The Complainant, on the other hand, has categorically pleaded that he purchased the premises for residential use for his large family and had paid almost the entire consideration amount. The Opposite Parties have not produced any independent documentary evidence to show that the Complainant was engaged in real-estate investment business or that he purchased multiple units or that he dealt in buying and selling flats for profit. Except relying on Clause 52, the Opposite Parties have not shown that the flat was ever intended to be used commercially.
18. It is a settled principle that the burden lies on the Opposite Parties to prove that a purchase was for commercial purpose. Mere insertion of a clause in the Agreement, without corroborating conduct, does not automatically convert a residential flat purchase into a commercial transaction. The Complainant paid consideration through cheques, executed a registered Agreement PVM+RRP CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 15 of 18 for Sale, and sought possession all attributes of a consumer transaction.
19. Hence, this Commission holds that the Complainant is a "Consumer" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) and the complaint is maintainable. Hence we answer issue no.1 in Affirmative.
As to Issue No.2 :
20. It is an admitted fact that Agreement for Sale was executed and registered between both the parties. As per Clause 13 of the said agreement the Opposite Parties were to hand over possession on or before May 2014. Possession was not handed over within the agreed period. The Possession was eventually handed over only after obtaining Occupancy Certificate on 11/04/2019, during pendency of the complaint, as acknowledged in the Pursis. Thus, there is a delay of almost 5 years beyond the contractual date.
21. The Opposite Parties have admitted the delay but seek to justify it on various grounds such as the death of their former Director in April 2013, financial constraints, learning curve of the new Director, and problems with suppliers. The Opposite Parties contended that the death of Late Mr. Ramesh Patel, Director, constitutes an "Act of God", and that Clauses 8 and 13 of the Agreement protect them from any liability for delay.While death of a Director may be an unfortunate event, it does not constitute an Act of God in the legal sense. "Act of God" refers to natural and unavoidable catastrophes such as earthquakes, floods, storms, PVM+RRP CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 16 of 18 etc., and not personal events relating to administrative or managerial personnel.
22. Moreover, the business of a company is expected to continue irrespective of changes in its Directors. Internal restructuring, corporate disputes, or financial mismanagement cannot be construed as a legal justification for delaying possession under a contract. These reasons, even if taken as true, are internal managerial issues arising from corporate functioning and cannot exonerate a builder from complying with statutory and contractual obligations. Therefore, the Opposite Parties cannot derive protection from Clauses 8 and 13, and cannot escape liability for the delay.
23. The delay in construction beyond the agreed date amounts to clear deficiency in service, Hence, this Commission holds that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service by not delivering possession within the agreed date. Although possession is now handed over, the Complainant suffered prolonged delay of nearly 5 years, uncertainty and mental stress, financial burden of waiting for a home. It is well-settled that delay in possession entitles a complainant to compensation irrespective of eventual possession being delivered later. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to reasonable compensation for mental agony and harassment along with cost .Hence we answer Issue no.2 in Affirmative and Proceed to pass the following Order.
ORDER.
1. The Complaint is partly allowed.
PVM+RRP CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 17 of 18
2. Since the Complainant has already received possession of the said Flat after issuance of Occupancy Certificate dated 11/04/2019 and has filed a Pursis giving up the prayer for possession.
3. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) towards compensation in each Complaint as prayed by the Complainants in their complaint as well as argued by the Advocate for mental agony, harassment and for the inordinate delay of nearly 5 years in handing over possession.
4. The Opposite Parties are further jointly and severally directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards litigation costs in each complaint.
5. The above amounts shall be paid within a period of 3 Months from the date of this Order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum From the date of this order till realization.
PVM+RRP CC/15/87,CC/15/88,CC/15/89,CC/15/90,CC/15/91,CC/15/92,CC/15/231. Page 18 of 18
6. The copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost [Mukesh V. Sharma] Presiding Member [Poonam V. Maharshi] Member PVM+RRP