State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms.Sonali R.Nashine Through Poa ... vs Lodha Developers Ltd.Lodha Splendora on 10 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI.
Consumer Complaint No. SC/27/CC/19/716
Ms. Sonali Ramkishor Nashine,
Age: 31 Yrs., Occ.: Service,
Through Power of Attorney Holder:
Mrs. Hemlata Ramkishor Nashine,
Age:63, Occ: Homemaker
Permanent address: B/403, Shewalkar Gardens,
South Ambazari Road, Gopal Nagar,
Nagpur, Maharashtra - 440022. ........ Complainant
Versus
M/s. Macrotech Developers Limited
(Formerly known as Lodha Developers Limited)
Office at: Lodha Splendora, Ghodbunder Road,
Bhayandarpada, Thane West, Maharashtra - 400615.
Head Office: Lodha Excelus, N.M. Joshi Marg,
Opp. Apollo Mill Compound, Mahalakshmi,
Mumbai - 400011. .....Opposite Party
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member
Hon'ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member
SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 2 of 19
APPEARANCE:
For Complainant : In person
For Opponent : Advocate Sunayana Babar
Advocate Muthahhar Khan
JUDGMENT
(Date: 10-03-2026)
1. The Complainant, Ms. Sonali Ramkishor Nashine, acting through her mother and registered Power of Attorney holder, Mrs. Hemlata Ramkishor Nashine, has filed the present Consumer Complaint under Section 12 read with Section17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, M/s. Macrotech Developers Limited (formerly known as Lodha Developers Limited), in connection with the booking and subsequent cancellation of a flat in the Opposite Party's residential project.
2. The Complainant had booked Flat No. 3004, on the 30th Floor, Platino G-Tower, Lodha Splendora project, located at Ghodbunder Road, Thane, Maharashtra, on 23rd May, 2019. The total consideration value of the said flat was Rs. 97,87,075/- (Rupees Ninety-Seven Lakhs Eighty- Seven Thousand Seventy-Five only). The Complainant paid a token amount of Rs. 20,000/- through credit card on 23rd May, 2019, and thereafter paid the balance of the 10% booking amount i.e., Rs. 9,58,708/- through RTGS on 24th May, 2019, thereby making a total payment of Rs. 9,78,708/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Seventy-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Eight only) to the Opposite Party.
MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 3 of 19
3. The Complainant alleged that, at the time of booking, the representatives of the Opposite Party including Shri Deepak Sapkal (Manager), Shri Rohit Bandal, Shri Sushant More, and Shri Ronnie Mali had specifically assured the Complainant that: (a) the Opposite Party would provide the application form, a copy of the relevant property documents and a draft "Agreement to Sell" under the Complainant's name, prior to registration; and (b) that registration of the agreement would be done at the Sub-Registrar's Office, Thane, by 30th May, 2019.
4. The Complainant stated that, contrary to the aforesaid assurances, the Application Form along with the Terms and Conditions, Price Sheet and Payment Schedule were sent to her only on 25th May, 2019, i.e., two days after the booking and only after payment of the 10% booking amount. The Complainant was neither shown nor given the Application Form and its Terms and Conditions at the time of booking and initial payment.
5. The Complainant further alleged that, despite repeated follow-ups by email, phone calls and text messages, the Opposite Party refused to share copies of: (a) the draft Agreement to Sell; (b) the Occupancy Certificate; and (c) other property documents prior to registration. The Opposite Party's Sales Executives, instead, directed the Complainant to physically visit the Head Office at Lodha Excelus, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai, to merely "view" the draft agreement on the condition that she could only do so one day before registration and that she could neither suggest alterations nor make any deletions or corrections, which complainant found unethical and an unfair trade practice.
MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 4 of 19
6. The complainant thus found the conduct of the Opposite Party changed noticeably and negatively towards the Complainant immediately after receipt of the 10% payment. It is the Complainant's case that the Opposite Party was positively engaged with the Complainant only until the 10% booking amount was paid, and thereafter demonstrated callous disregard for her legitimate requests of the complainant.
7. Being aggrieved by the Opposite Party's unfair trade practices and unprofessional behaviour, and being denied the elementary right to review the draft Agreement to Sell before signing, the Complainant was constrained to cancel the booking of the said flat by email dated 28th May, 2019, i.e., within 5 days of booking, and sought a refund of the entire amount paid by her. At this stage, it must be noted that the Agreement for Sale was neither signed nor registered.
8. The Complainant sent a legal notice dated 29th May, 2019, seeking cancellation of the flat booking and refund of the paid amount with interest. The legal notice was duly delivered to the Opposite Party's Head Office at Mahalakshmi, Mumbai, on 31st May, 2019, as confirmed by India Post tracking records.
9. Despite the legal notice, the Opposite Party continued to send emails marked as "service request closed" without addressing the refund at all. On 3rd June, 2019, the Opposite Party had the audacity to forward registration forms requesting the Complainant to pay stamp duty and registration charges -- despite being fully aware that the booking had already been cancelled and a legal notice had been received. According to complainant on 4th June, 2019, the Opposite Party sent a Voluntary Cancellation Request form which: (a) incorrectly stated the reason for MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 5 of 19 cancellation as "personal"; (b) contained an incorrect booking date; (c) included one-sided, inappropriate and unilateral clauses; and (d) ominously stated that the refund cheque "IF APPLICABLE" would be ready in 45 to 60 days. The Complainant refused to sign such a form.
10. Thereafter, the Complainant sent further emails on 7th June, 12th June and 13th June, 2019, reiterating her request for refund. On 21st June, 2019, the Opposite Party replied to her legal notice stating they "shall respond shortly" -- but made absolutely no commitment regarding refund. The Complainant then sent a "Last Notice" email on 20th June, 2019, following which the Opposite Party gave a vague reply.
11. Adding to the grievances, the Complainant also discovered in July 2019 that the Opposite Party had, without her knowledge or consent, filed a TDS return using her PAN card, treating the cancelled booking as a completed purchase transaction. The Complainant had never authorized such a filing amounts to misuse of the Complainant's personal documents and a fraudulent act of serious misconduct.
12. It is further alleged that the Opposite Party passed on the Complainant's contact information to third parties without her consent, resulting in the Complainant receiving numerous unsolicited calls from imposters posing as bankers. The Opposite Party's representatives also refused to communicate in writing, preferring verbal communication only a technique to avoid creating a paper trail.
13. Left with no alternative, the Complainant filed the present consumer complaint on 09/08/2019, seeking: (a) refund of Rs. 9,78,708/- with 18% interest p.a. from 24/05/2019; (b) compensation of MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 6 of 19 Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment; and (c) Rs. 76,000/- towards cost of litigation.
14. The name of the Opposite Party was amended from "Lodha Developers Limited" to "M/s. Macrotech Developers Limited" vide order dated 04/06/2024, consequent to the Opposite Party itself filing a pursis disclosing the change in corporate name vide Certificate of Incorporation dated 24/05/2019.
15. The Opposite Party did not file a Written Version / Written Statement in the present proceedings within the time prescribed by law. However, the Opposite Party filed Written Arguments raising the following objections such as :
(A) No Pecuniary Jurisdiction: Opposite Party alleged that the total aggregate of the value of the flat (Rs. 1,06,04,475/-
as per the booking form) and the compensation claimed exceeds Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, thereby allegedly ousting the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Opposite Party relied upon the judgments in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Renu Singh v. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd., and Parikshit Parashar v. Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
(B) No Cause of Action: That the Opposite Party had already offered to refund the full amount without forfeiture vide email dated 04/06/2019, and hence no cause of action MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 7 of 19 arose to file the complaint. The Complainant was unreasonable in refusing to sign the standard forms required for processing the refund.
(C) No Entitlement for Interest: That since refund was already offered, interest cannot run on any amount thereafter.
(D) Complainant Cannot Take Advantage of Her Own Wrong: That the Complainant herself created the situation by cancelling the booking and refusing to sign the cancellation form.
(E) Suppression of Booking Form: That the Complainant deliberately suppressed the booking form dated 23/05/2019 which shows the total flat value of Rs. 1,06,04,475/-.
(F) No Deficiency of Service or Unfair Trade Practice: That the Opposite Party had offered refund and made several calls to the Complainant, thereby demonstrating bona fides.
(G) No Compensation for Mental Agony and Cost: That the Complainant's claim arises from a commercial contract and damages for mental agony cannot be awarded in ordinary commercial contracts, relying on Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India (AIR 2000 SC 2003).
MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 8 of 19
16. We have carefully gone through the complaint, the evidence affidavit filed by the Complainant, the written arguments submitted by both parties and all the relevant documents placed on record. Upon due consideration of the pleadings, evidence and the rival contentions, the following issues / points arose for our determination:
Issue Issue / Point for Determination Finding No.
1. Whether this Commission has pecuniary Yes jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint?
2. Whether the Opposite Party is guilty of Yes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to Yes refund of the amount paid along with interest?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to Yes compensation and cost of litigation?
5. What order? Complaint PARTLY ALLOWED.
As per Final order.
MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 9 of 19 FINDINGS AND REASONS:
Issue No. 1 - Whether this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint?
17. The foremost objection raised by the Opposite Party concerns the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. It is contended that by aggregating the value of the flat and the compensation claimed, the total exceeds Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, thereby placing the complaint beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction prescribed under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
18. We have carefully gone through the Statement of Claims filed by the Complainant. The Complainant has clearly and unequivocally stated in the Statement of Claims that the total claim amount is Rs. 9,99,9,075/- (including refund, interest, compensation and costs) which is well within Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. More importantly, the Complainant is not seeking possession of the flat nor delivery of the flat at its full sale value. The subject matter of the complaint is limited to the refund of the 10% booking amount of Rs. 9,78,708/- paid to the Opposite Party, along with incidental reliefs.
19. The law in this regard is well settled, infact the Opposite Party itself has referred and relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in which it was held that the value of the goods or services to be considered, for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction for which the complaint is filed. In the present complaint, the Complainant never took possession of the flat; no registered agreement was executed. The MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 10 of 19 Complainant's grievance is purely about the non-refund of the booking amount actually paid. The value of the "service" availed (or sought) does not cross the pecuniary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-.
20. The reliance placed by the Opposite Party upon the other judgments cited in its List of Judgments are :
Parikshit Parashar v. M/s Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Sr. No. 2, Pages 17-18) Renu Singh v. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Sr. No. 3, Pages 19-40), Alpha G184 Owners Association v. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (Sr. No. 4, Pages 41-52), Paras Jain v. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. (Sr. No. 5, Pages 53-
60), Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors. (Sr. No. 6, Pages 61-
71), and Hindustan Zinc Limited v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Sr. No. 7, Pages 72-80) --
these judgments deal with different facts and different aspects of consumer law the consumers had made substantial payments / executed agreements, and were claiming possession or damages arising from the full contracted value of the flat. These cases are therefore factually inapplicable to the present complaint where the booking was cancelled within five days and no Agreement for Sale was ever signed or registered. We are accordingly satisfied that the Opposite Party's jurisdictional objection is not sustainable either in law or on facts. The total claim of the Complainant, as reflected in the Statement of Claims, is as under:
MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 11 of 19 Sr. No. Head of Claim Amount (Rs.) Total consideration value of the flat (value
1. 97,87,075/-
of service) Interest @ 18% p.a. from 24/05/2019 to
2. 36,000/-
08/08/2019
Compensation for mental agony and
3. 1,00,000/-
harassment
4. Cost of litigation 76,000/-
Total 99,99,075/-
21. The aggregate of the value of the service and the compensation claimed is Rs. 99,99,075/- -- which is within the pecuniary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- prescribed Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Opposite Party's attempt to add the refund amount of Rs. 9,78,708/- separately over and above the total consideration value is a double-counting of the same amount and is therefore a wholly misconceived contention which cannot be accepted. Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Issue No. 2 - Whether the Opposite Party is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
22. We now turn to the core issue. Before addressing the specific conduct of the Opposite Party, it is necessary to examine the terms and conditions governing the booking, which the Opposite Party itself relied upon.
MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 12 of 19
23. A crucial and uncontested fact is that the Complainant was not provided the Application Form, Terms and Conditions, Price Sheet or Payment Schedule at the time of booking on 23rd May, 2019, or at the time of payment on 24th May, 2019. These documents were sent to the Complainant only by email on 25th May, 2019 i.e., after the payment of Rs. 9,78,708/- had already been made. This conduct itself represents a failure of transparency and fair dealing on the part of the Opposite Party, which is a service provider engaged in real estate transactions involving crores of rupees of public money.
24. Further Clause 35 of the Terms and Conditions at Page 99 - Annexure D of the complaint papers reads as under:
"In the event that the Company rejects the application on account of non-receipt of Booking Amounts or any part thereof, or the Applicant not abiding by terms and conditions contained in the Application Form (including these terms and conditions), then this Application Form shall, without any further notice, be liable to be rejected and all amounts paid towards the Booking Amount I and II (or 10 per cent of the Total Consideration, whichever is higher), or any part thereof, shall stand forfeited."
25. The Opposite Party, while relying upon the existence of these Terms and Conditions in the booking form, has failed to explain how these very Terms and Conditions were binding upon the Complainant when she had not been shown or given them at the time of booking and payment. The principle is straightforward - a party cannot be bound by terms and conditions it was not given an opportunity to read and accept before MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 13 of 19 making payment. The Opposite Party's conduct of withholding documents, collecting money is an unfair trade practice.
26. The Complainant's grievance rests on the following specific acts and omissions of the Opposite Party, each of which, in our considered opinion, independently constitutes deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice:
(i) Failure to provide documents before payment: The Application Form, Terms and Conditions, Price Sheet and Payment Schedule were provided only after the 10% payment was received, depriving the Complainant of the opportunity to make an informed decision.
(ii) Refusal to share draft Agreement to Sell: The Opposite Party refused to share a copy of the draft Agreement to Sell prior to registration, offering only a supervised "viewing" one day before the event, without permitting any alteration, correction or legal consultation. This is an unfair and one-sided practice that is violative of the fundamental contractual principle that an agreement must be mutually agreed upon by both parties.
(iii) Change in conduct after payment: The Opposite Party was positively responsive only until the 10% amount was received;
thereafter, the conduct changed adversely -- a pattern well- recognized in consumer jurisprudence as a unfair dealing.
(iv) Fabricated cancellation form: The Voluntary Cancellation Request Form sent on 04/06/2019 wrongly attributed the reason for cancellation as "personal", contained an incorrect booking date, and included unilateral, one-sided clauses MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 14 of 19 which was drafted on the Complainant's behalf without her instruction or consent. No reasonable person could be expected to sign such a document.
(v) TDS filing without consent: The Opposite Party filed a TDS return using the Complainant's PAN card without her knowledge or authorization, treating a cancelled booking as a completed transaction.
(vi) Sharing of personal data: The Complainant's contact details were passed on to third parties without consent, resulting in unsolicited calls from imposters.
(vii) Deliberate preference for oral communication: The Opposite Party's representative expressly stated preference for phone calls over written communication -- a tactic to prevent the creation of a written record of commitments.
27. The Opposite Party's Advocate has contended that a full refund was already offered vide email dated 04/06/2019 and therefore no deficiency in service or cause of action arises. We are unable to accept this contention. A bare perusal of the said email reveals that the Opposite Party did not make any unconditional offer of refund -- the refund was conditional upon the Complainant signing a Voluntary Cancellation Request Form. As discussed in Para No. 9 above, that form was factually incorrect in material particulars, carried a wrong date of booking, attributed the reason of cancellation as "personal" which was untrue, and contained wholly one-sided and oppressive clauses drafted unilaterally by the Opposite Party in its own favour. No reasonable person could be expected to sign such a document. More importantly, as discussed in Para No. 24 above, Clause 35 of the very Terms and Conditions relied MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 15 of 19 upon by the Opposite Party empowered it to forfeit the entire 10% booking amount i.e., Rs. 9,78,708/- upon cancellation. Had the Complainant signed that form, the Opposite Party would have been in a position to invoke Clause 35 and return nothing -- or a token sum -- to the Complainant. The so-called "offer" of refund was therefore not a genuine offer at all. It was a trap -- designed to either coerce the Complainant into signing a prejudicial document or leave her without any remedy. Such conduct, far from negating the deficiency, only reinforces it. The contention of Opposite Party is accordingly rejected.
28. The Opposite Party has further contended that the Complainant cannot take advantage of her own wrong, citing the principle that "a man shall not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong." This principle has absolutely no application here. The Complainant did not act negligently or imprudently. She was a consumer who paid nearly ten lakhs of rupees in good faith, was then denied the basic right to review the draft agreement she was expected to sign, and cancelled the booking within five days when she was confronted with the Opposite Party's unethical conduct. The "wrong," if any, is entirely on the part of the Opposite Party.
29. We are satisfied, on the totality of evidence and material on record, that the Opposite Party is guilty of calculated, serious and deliberate act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Issue No. 3 - Whether the Complainant is entitled to refund of the amount paid along with interest?
MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 16 of 19
30. The Complainant is clearly entitled to refund of the entire amount paid by her i.e., Rs. 9,78,708/-. The booking was cancelled within 5 days; no Agreement for Sale was signed or registered; no allotment letter was issued; possession was never given. The Agreement for Sale was explicitly never concluded. To forfeit 10% of the booking amount in such a situation -- or to condition refund on signing of a one-sided cancellation form would be to permit the Opposite Party to unjustly enrich itself at the Complainant's expense.
31. As regards interest, the Opposite Party contends that since it offered to refund the amount, no interest is payable. We reject this contention for the reasons stated under Issue No. 2 above. The Opposite Party's so- called "offer" of refund was never unconditional. Money belonging to the Complainant has been retained by the Opposite Party from 24/05/2019 onwards without any justification. The Complainant is entitled to compensation for the use and retention of her money.
32. The Complainant has sought interest at 18% per annum. We have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. The Opposite Party is a large real estate developer which for their wrongful gain has retained the Complainant's hard-earned money for years without legitimate cause. However, we deem it appropriate and just to award interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of payment i.e., 24/05/2019, till the date of actual realization. Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 4 - Whether the Complainant is entitled to compensation and cost of litigation?
MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 17 of 19
33. The Opposite Party has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India (AIR 2000 SC 2003) to contend that compensation for mental agony cannot be awarded in ordinary commercial contracts. We are unable to accept this contention in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The present complaint is not a commercial dispute over contractual terms. It involves deliberate, systematic and sustained acts of unfair trade practice, manipulation, misuse of the Complainant's documents, harassment through third-party callers, and a brazen refusal to return the Complainant's money for years. This is not the ordinary breach of a commercial contract -- it is a case of corporate high-handedness against an ordinary consumer.
34. The Complainant has been deprived of nearly ten lakhs of rupees since May 2019. She has been forced to run from pillar to post -- sending emails, legal notices, last notices -- without result. She has suffered mental agony, financial loss and harassment at the hands of Opposite Party. Having regard to the nature of the grievance, the sustained period of deprivation, the Opposite Party's conduct throughout, and the harassment caused, we are of the view that the Complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for mental agony, inconvenience and harassment, and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards the cost of litigation. Issue No. 4 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 5 - What order?
35. The present case is a perfect illustration of why the Consumer Protection Act was enacted. The Complainant is an ordinary citizen who MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 18 of 19 parted with nearly ten lakhs of rupees in good faith, was subjected to unfair trade practices from the very inception, and has been made to wait for years for the return of her own money. The Opposite Party has created a vicious circle -- offering to refund subject to signing of a prejudicial document, having clause of deduction of 10% then refusing to refund without such signing, then retaining the amount indefinitely. There is only one just solution: to direct the Opposite Party to refund the amount unconditionally, with interest and compensation, within a fixed time, failing which a daily compensation shall run making it commercially unattractive for the Opposite Party to delay compliance.
36. For all the foregoing reasons, we answer Issue No. 5 as follows:
ORDER
1. Consumer Complaint No. CC/19/716 is hereby partly ALLOWED.
2. The Opposite Party, M/s. Macrotech Developers Limited (formerly Lodha Developers Limited), is hereby directed to refund the principal amount of Rs. 9,78,708/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Seventy-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Eight only) to the Complainant, along with interest thereon at the rate of 15% (Fifteen percent) per annum from the date of payment i.e., 24/05/2019, till the date of actual realization/payment.
MVS+RRP SC/27/CC/19/716 Page 19 of 19
3. The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the Complainant towards mental agony, inconvenience and harassment and also litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the Complainant.
4. In the event that the Opposite Party fails and/or neglects to comply with directions (1), (2) and (3) above within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order by any means, the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay an additional compensation amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per day from the date of expiry of the said 45-day period, until actual payment and compliance.
5. Copy of order be provided to both the parties free of cost.
[Mukesh V. Sharma] Presiding Member [Poonam V. Maharshi] Member MVS+RRP