State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parinee Adney Cooperative Housing ... vs Parinee Realty Pvt Ltd on 20 November, 2025
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMISSION,
MAHARASTRA, MUMBAI
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: SC/27/CC/292/2025
Parinee Adney I Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
Mascarenhas, Wadi, Holy Cross Road,
IC Colony, Borivali (West),
Mumbai-400 103
Through its Secretary Rebecca Rasquinha and Chairman
Avril M. Fernandes
adneycommittee(@gmail.com ....Complainant
Versus
Parinee Realty Pvt Ltd
A private Limited Company, incorporated
Under the provisions of Company Act, 2013
102/103, Smag House,
Plot No. 157-A, Sarojni Road Extn
Opp. Darshana Apt., Vile Parle (West).
Mumbai 400 056 ...Opposite Party
BEFORE:
Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon'ble Member
APPEARANCE:
For Complainant : Adv. Anil D'Souza
For Opposite Party : None
ORDER
(Delivered on 20/11/2025) Per: Mrs. Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Member.
This is the case filed under S.47 of the Consumer Protection Act-2019. (The 'C.P. Act' for short).
1. It is case of Complainant that the Respondent was entitled to redevelop all the piece and parcel of land and ground admeasuring as per the present Property Register Card in the aggregate 5,613 square meters, bearing CTS Nos. 675/12 (pt). 869, 870 (pt), 871, 872, 876 (pt), 878, 1062 (pt), all of village Eksar, 2 Taluka Borivali, and in the registration sub-district of Mumbai Suburban and more particularly described in the First Schedule hereunder written ("the Said Property"). The Respondent was undertaking redevelopment of the said Property. The building to be constructed on the Said Property and issued in favour of the Respondent, the Intimation of Approval dated 19th October, 2012 in respect of the building would comprise the rehabilitation units of Slum Dweller ("the Proposed Rehab Building") and two subsequent intimation of Approval dated 21th November 2012 and 9th November 2012 both plans are amended under the letter dated 4th October 2014 in respect of the two buildings, i.e. plans for the sale area ("the Proposed Sale Building"). In accordance with the Building Approvals and further amendments, the Respondent proposed to construct on the Sale Portions, the Proposed Sale Building, viz two new buildings as followed, i. One building comprising of basement, stilt/ground plus Twenty-
two(22) upper floors as proposed to be known as "Parinee Adney 2"
("the Sale Building No. 1") ii. ii. Other building comprising of stilt/ground plus Twenty-one (21) upper floors as proposed to be known as "Parinee Adney 1" ("the Sale Building No. 2")
2. Complainant submitted that the Respondent aggressively advertised the project in all leading newspapers, electronic media, social media, site branding, and other platforms several times, as a uber luxury home project with lavish and premium amenities creating a mirage in the minds of the prospective homebuyers. In response to the advertisements of this grandeur project, the Members of the Complainant Society above named, on various mutually exclusive occasions, approached the Respondent for purchasing of flats in this 'uber luxury project being promoted by the Respondent and executed Agreement for Sale with the Respondent in respect of their respective flats for colossal amounts only on the basis of the promises and assurances made by the Respondent with regard to the title of the land, quality of construction, number 3 of amenities, facilities, in the project and seamless completion and handover of the project. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit "A-Colly" are copies of the Agreement for Sale for the certain Members of the Complainant Society.
3. Complainant submitted that the Development Activity under taken by the Respondent was sub-standard in nature and couldn't adhere to the Quality measures promised as per the said Agreements executed by and between the Members of the Complainant Society and the Respondents, respectively.
4. The Members of the Complainant Society were facing various issues in respect to the construction work of the building which had to be addressed and resolved at the earliest as the Respondent were supposed to construct two towers, one 2BHK tower and one 3 BHK tower. The Respondent had received provisional OC on 20th September 2020 for 3BHK tower on the other hand 2BHK tower had not yet received complete OC. The Members of the Complainant Society herein are residents of the 3 BHK Tower, more particularly known as "Parinee Adney I CIISL". The Respondent shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Builder".
5. Based on provisional OC received on 20th September 2020 The Respondent contacted owners of 3BHK to take possession of their flats. When the Members of the Complainant Society were approached to take procession, in September 2020, the Members of the Complainant Society visited the building at the time and informed the builder of the various jobs 'Snag List', that were incomplete in the building namely:
i. incomplete gym, ii. stack parking not operational, iii. building lobby not completed and in shabby condition, iv. visible cracks on the building, v.building not painted properly, vi. puzzle parking structure not erected, vii. compound work, boundary wall and gate issues, 4 viii. name signage of the building badly damaged, ix. name plate of the residents not provided by the Respondent.. X leakage issue everywhere, xi. green mold growing on walls, xii. seepage through the walls, xiii. and also those things that had to be done in individual flats as they were either broken or of bad quality.
xiv. leakage from above rooms, xv. seepage from outside walls in each room etc.
6. There are several other issues, submitted by the Complainant before this Commission. Under the circumstances, the Complainant prays to this Hon'ble Commission that a. The Respondent its directors/agents/its officers are guilty of deficiency of service and restrictive trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; b. That Respondent or anyone claiming through them or under them to refund a sum of Rs. 73,31,488/-(Rupees Seventy Three Lakh Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Eight Only) to the Society of the Complainants, being total expenditure made by the Complainants with interest @12% p.a. till payment. c. That Respondent or anyone claiming through them or under them to rectify all the defective work and or more specifically mentioned in the Complaint herein above within a time bound schedule of three months or such other time as may be specified by this Hon'ble Commission or in the alternative to pay to the Complainant the cost of rectifying the said work. OR d. That the Respondent or anyone claiming through them or under them to pay an amount of Rs.71,50,000/- (Rupees Seventy One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) or any such revised amount that shall be required for rectification of all the defective work and or more specifically mentioned in the Complaint herein above within a time bound schedule.
e. That the Respondent or anyone claiming through them or under them to pay 5 an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakh Only) for the mental agony, harassment and anxiety that the Complainants have had to undergo, due to failure of the Respondent to rectify the issues of the said building; f. That the Respondent or anyone claiming through them or under them to pay an amount of Rs.60, 00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakh Only) as compensation for the delivery of substandard and poor quality of flats, not maintaining them and posing threat to life, limb and property of the occupants, total and abject failure of the Respondent to rectify the issues of the said building:
g. That the Respondent to re-imburse the members of the Complainant Society for all the expenses they have had to incur due to the respondent not fulfilling his promise and obligation made via the agreement, duties and responsibilities which the builder was destined to provide as per the agreement, by which he is bound as a service provider to provide.
h. That the Respondent or anyone claiming through them or under them to pay the litigation charges incurred by the Complainant;
7. The points for determination along with our findings thereon are as for follows.
Sr. No. Points Findings
1 Whether this Commission has pecuniary Negative
jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?
2 What order? As per final Order
REASONS
As to point no.1 :
8. The Learned Advocate for the complainant filed an application that, this Commission is having no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint as the complaint. we agree with the submission by the learned Advocate of the complainant. S. 47 (1) (a) (i) of C. P. Act, stipulates that, State Commission would have to entertain the complaint, where the value of goods or services 'paid as a consideration' is more than Rs.50 Lakh to Rs. 2 crore.
6The provision is very much clear that pecuniary limit of this Commission is to be decided not on the basis of value of the goods or services, and the compensation claimed but on the consideration paid for the value of the goods or services as the case may be. In the present case, though the complainant paid consideration of Rs.73, 31,481/-as a one unit and there is a society so we have to calculate the whole amount paid by the other members also. As such, we are of the view that, this Commission is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this case. Hence, we answer point No.1 is negative.
As to point no. 2:
9. In view of our finding given as to have point No.1 in negative, it has become clear that, this Commission do not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint. The same should have been presented before Hon'ble National Commission As such, the complaint will have to be returned vide Order VII Rule 10 of The Code of Civil Procedure,1908 to be filed before Hon'ble National Commission.
10. Consequently, the complainant will have to directed to furnish Xerox copy of the entire complaint to the registry of this Commission and there after Registrar to return to the complainant, original complaint along with the all original documents for filling the complaint before Hon'ble National Commission, within 3 months from the date of this order. Further, in view of the facts of this case, there would no order as to cost. Hence, in an answer to point No.2, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The Complaint is returned to the complainant to be filed before Hon'ble National Commission, within 3 months from the date of this order.
2. The complainant is directed to furnish xerox copy of entire file on the record of this Commission and thereafter Registrar to return the original complaint along with the all original documents to the complainant, after obtaining his endorsement on the Xerox copy that he has received the original file.
73. No order for cost.
4. The copy of this order to be furnished free of cost to the complainant.
(Mukesh V. Sharma) Presiding Member Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan Member NAC/aj