State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area ... vs Mohanlal Kawluji Ramteke on 31 December, 2025
Date of pronouncement:-31.12.2025
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. 440 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 17.01.2018 in CC No. 17/13 of the State Commission Maharashtra Nagpur
Circuit Bench)
1. The Chief Officer,
Nagpur housing & Area Development Board,
(A MHADA unit),Civil Lines, Nagpur
Maharashtra.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,
GRIHA Nirman Bhavan, Bandra East,
Mumbai-400055.,
through its Vice-Chairman & CEO, Mumbai,
Maharashtra.
..... Appellants
Versus
1. Mrs. Usha Suresh Thakare,
C/o. Dr. Suresh Thakare,
AchalpurRoad, Paratwada,
TAH. Achalpur Dist. Amravati, Maharashtra.
2. M/s. IVRCL infrastructure and Project Ltd.,
Having its local office at, MHADA city,
Near Geeta Mandir, Subhash Road, Nagpur,
Through its Chairman cum Managing Director,
Nagpur, Maharashtra.
3. Mitali Co-Operative Housing Society,
Through its President, having its office at
MHADA City, Near Geeta Mandir,
Subhash Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra. ... Respondents
FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 1 of 40
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2334 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 17.01.2018 in CC No. 17/13 of the State Commission Maharashtra Nagpur
Circuit Bench)
MRS. USHA SURESH THAKARE
C/o Dr. Suresh Thakre, Achalpur Road,
Paratwada, Taluka Achalpur,
District Amaravati ..... Appellants
Versus
(1) The Chief Officer,
Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board,
(A MHADA UNIT) MHADA
Gruha Nirman Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
(2) Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,
Griha Nirman Bhavan,
Bandra East, Mumbai 400055
through its Vice-Chairman and CEO. .... Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1112 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 23.03.2018 in CC No. 69/2016 of the State Commission Maharashtra
Nagpur Circuit Bench)
1. The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board
(A MHADA Unit), Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Estate Manager,
Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board
A MHADA Unit, Civil Lines,
Nagpur
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400055
..... Appellants
FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 2 of 40
Versus
Sh. Ajay Radhelal Shranagat,
R/o House No. 734, Village Navin Yerkheda,
Tah & Post- Kamptee, Distt.
Nagpur-441001,
Nagpur, Maharashtra. ...... Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1113 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 23.03.2018 in CC No. 70/2016 of the State Commission Maharashtra
Nagpur Circuit Bench)
1. The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board
(A MHADA Unit), Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Estate Manager,
Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board
A MHADA Unit, Civil Lines,
Nagpur
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400055
..... Appellants
Versus
Sh. Ashwin Kumar Thakkar
S/o Odha Vajibhai Thakkar
R/o Ring Avantibai Chowk, Bajrangi Bazar,
Near Dosa HUT,
Gondia-4416114. ...... Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1114 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 23.03.2018 in CC No. 96/2016 of the State Commission Maharashtra
Nagpur Circuit Bench)
1. The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board
(A MHADA Unit), Civil Lines, Nagpur
FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 3 of 40
2. The Estate Manager,
Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board
A MHADA Unit, Civil Lines, Nagpur
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400055
..... Appellants
Versus
Sh. Sayyad Shaneali
S/o Nadar Ali
R/o Flat No. 68, Vidharbh Housing,
Colony, Ramnagar, Datala Road,
Distt. Chandrapur-441401....(deceased)
Through LRs
Mrs. Asifa Bano Wd/o Shri Sayyad Shaneali,
R/o 68, Vidharbha Housing Board Colony,
Ramnagar, Chandrapur - 442 401. ......Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1115 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 23.03.2018 in CC No. 97/2016 of the State Commission Maharashtra
Nagpur Circuit Bench)
1. The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board
(A MHADA Unit), Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Estate Manager,
Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board
A MHADA Unit, Civil Lines, Nagpur
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400055
..... Appellants
Versus
Sh. Vilas Ramdas Nimsarkar,
S/o Ram Das Nimasarkar,
Thavre Colony, Near Mandir,
New Subedar, Layout, Nagpur-440024. ...... Respondent
FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 4 of 40
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1116 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 23.03.2018 in CC No. 98/2016 of the State Commission Maharashtra
Nagpur Circuit Bench)
1. The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board
(A MHADA Unit), Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Estate Manager,
Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board
A MHADA Unit, Civil Lines, Nagpur
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400055
..... Appellants
Versus
Sh. Janardan Lande
S/o Laxmanrao Lande
R/o Plot No. 5, Eaknath Vihar,
Near Cancer Hospital, Shankar Nagar,
Rajapeth, Amravati - 444606 ......Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1117 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 23.03.2018 in CC No. 137/2016 of the State Commission Maharashtra
Nagpur Circuit Bench)
1. The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board
(A MHADA Unit), Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Estate Manager,
Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board
A MHADA Unit, Civil Lines, Nagpur
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400055
..... Appellants
Versus
FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 5 of 40
Shri. Dr. Virendra Ratansing Rathod
R/o Rathod Hospital, Tilakwad
Yavatmal-445001. ...... Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1279 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 23.02.2018 in CC No. 28/2017 of the State Commission Maharashtra
Nagpur Circuit Bench)
1. The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board
(A MHADA Unit), Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Estate Manager,
Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board
A MHADA Unit, Civil Lines, Nagpur
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400055
..... Appellants
Versus
Smt. Sunita Madhusudan Dhote,
R/o Plot No.35, Shivajinagar, Near I.T.I.,
Ramtek Road, Mouda, Taluka & Post: Mouda,
District: Nagpur-441 104 ...... Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1280 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 23.02.2018 in CC No. 29/2017 of the State Commission Maharashtra
Nagpur Circuit Bench)
1. The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board
(A MHADA Unit), Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Estate Manager,
Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board
A MHADA Unit, Civil Lines, Nagpur
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,
FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 6 of 40
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400055
..... Appellants
Versus
Shri. Uttamchand Tukaram Kamble
S/o Tukaram Kamble,
R/o MSEB Colony, Behind Taj Guest House,
Nagpur Road, Tal. & Post: Bramhapuri,
District: Chandrapur-441 206 ...... Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1281 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 23.02.2018 in CC No. 30/2017 of the State Commission Maharashtra
Nagpur Circuit Bench)
1. The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board
(A MHADA Unit), Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Estate Manager,
Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board
A MHADA Unit, Civil Lines, Nagpur
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400055
..... Appellants
Versus
Shri. Mohanlal Kawluji Ramteke
S/o Kawluji Ramteke,
R/o Behind Tahsil Office, Vidhyanagar,
Burdi, Taluka & Post: Armori,
District: Gadchiroli - 441208 ...... Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1282 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 23.02.2018 in CC No. 31/2017 of the State Commission Maharashtra
Nagpur Circuit Bench)
1. The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board
(A MHADA Unit), Civil Lines, Nagpur
FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 7 of 40
2. The Estate Manager,
Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board
A MHADA Unit, Civil Lines, Nagpur
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400055
..... Appellants
Versus
Smt. Sunanda Bhagyawan Kamble,
W/o Bhagyawan Kamble,
R/o Snehal Nagar, Ward No. 4,
Bhagyananda, Wardha - 442 001 ...... Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2020
(Against the Order dated 11.12.2019 in CC No. 48/2018 of the State Commission Maharashtra
Nagpur Circuit Bench)
Shri Sonalkumar Sureshchandra Gupta
R/o Old Cotton Market, C/o Gopal Kirana Stores,
Chitra Talkies Road,
Amaravati - 444 601 .... Appellant
Versus
1. The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board
(A MHADA Unit), Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440 001.
2. The Estate Manager,
Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board
A MHADA Unit, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440 001.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400055
..... Respondents
FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 8 of 40
FIRST APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2020
(Against the Order dated 11.12.2019 in CC No. 48/2018 of the State Commission Maharashtra
Nagpur Circuit Bench)
1. The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board
(A MHADA Unit), Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. The Estate Manager,
Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board
A MHADA Unit, Civil Lines, Nagpur
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400055
..... Appellants
Versus
Shri Sonalkumar Sureshchandra Gupta
R/o Old Cotton Market, C/o Gopal Kirana Stores,
Chitra Talkies Road,
Amaravati - 444 601,
Maharashtra ...... Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.), PRESIDING
MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
Appearance at the time of arguments:-
For the Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing
& Area Development Board: Mr. C.M. Shroff, Advocate(in VC)
For the Complainant
Usha Suresh Thakare : Dr. Tushar Mandlekar,Advocate(in VC)
FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 9 of 40
For all other Complainants: Mr. M.G. Burde, Advocate (in VC)
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. (i) FA No.440 of 2018 and FA No.2334 of 2019 are cross appeals preferred against impugned Order dated 17.01.2018 whereby the complaint was allowed by learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur Circuit Bench in the following terms:
"The complaint is partly allowed as under.
i. The O.P. Nos. 1&2 shall deliver the possession of the flat described in the complaint within six month from today. They shall also execute the sale deed of the said flat within six months from today by accepting from her final price of the flat fixed by it, on the date of sale deed.
iii.The O.P.Nos. 1&2 shall also pay to the complainant interest at the rate of 15% p.a. over the amount of Rs. 46,04,871/- from date 30/09/2013 till the delivery of the possession of the flat along with sale deed to the complainant.
iv.The O.P.Nos. 1&2 shall also obtain necessary statutory sanction, permission & certificate from the various government departments or authories, within six months from today.
v The O.P.Nos. 1&2 shall also provide all facilities and amenities to the said project called as MHADA CITY as per contract entered between them and OP No. 3 of which copy is filed on record FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 10 of 40 vi The O.P. Nos. 1&2 also jointly and severally shall pay to the complainant compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
vii The complaint as against O.P.Nos. 3&4 stands dismissed.
Viii Copy of the present order be issued to both the parties, free of cost."
(ii) FA No.220 of 2020 and 418 of 2020 are cross appeals against Order dated 11.12.2019 whereby the complaint was allowed by learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur Circuit Bench in the following terms:
"Consumer Complaint no. 18/48 is partly allowed.
2. Opposite parties are held guilty of deficiency in service.
3. Opposite parties are directed to handover to complainant, possession of 3 bhk flat no. B/1003 in building no. 1 in MHADA City, Nagpur as described in complainant alongwith occupancy certificate and to execute sale deed in respect of the same.
4. The expenses for registration of sale deed and stamp duty and any other mandatory charges shall be borne by complainant.
5. Opposite parties are directed to pay to complainant interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.42,97.962/- for the period from 1.3.2015 till handing over possession/execution of sale deed whichever is earlier. FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 11 of 40
6. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.50,000 to complainant towards damages/compensation for causing loss, harassment, mental agony, failure to deliver possession and failure to register sale deed in agreed time period.
7. The cost of this complaint is quantified at Rs.25,000/- to be paid by opposite parties to complainant.
8. The above directions are to be compiled by opposite parties jointly and severally within a period of 3 months from receipt of this order failing which opposite parties will be liable to pay interest @12% pa to complainant on the amounts mentioned above for the period thereafter.
9. Copy of this order be furnished to the parties, free of cost.
(iii) FA No.1279 of 2018, 1280 of 2018, 1281 of 2018 and 1282 of 2018 and have been preferred by Chief Officer Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Anr. challenging Order dated 23.02.2018 whereby the complaints were allowed by learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur Circuit Bench in the following terms:
I. All these five complaints bearing Nos. CC/17/28, CC/17/29, CC/17/30 and CC/17/31 are partly allowed as under.
II. The O.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 shall deliver possession of the respective flat described in detail in each of the complaint to respective complainant within six months from the date of this order. They shall also execute sale deed of the said flat within six months from the FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 12 of 40 date of this order by accepting from each of them final price of the respective flat fixed by them, on the date of sale deed.
III. The O.P.Nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall also pay to the respective complainant interest @ 15% P.A. over the following amount from the date 01/05/2015 till delivery of the possession of the respective flats alongwith sale deed to each of them.
Sr. Consumer Amount paid
No. Complaint No. in Rs.
1. CC/17/28 29,85,806/-
2. CC/17/29 29,08,835/-
3. CC/17/30 29,80,654/-
4. CC/17/31 45,78,496/-
IV. The O.P.Nos. 1. 2 and 3 shall also obtain occupation certificate and "No Objection Certificate" from Nagpur Municipal Corporation or any other requisite certificate from competent authority within six months from the date of this order.
V. The O.P.Nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall also pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- to each of the complainant in each of the complaint.
VI. Copy of this order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
(iv) FA No.1112 of 2018, 1113 of 2018, 1114 of 2018, 1115 of 2018, 1116 of 2018 and 1117 of 2018 have been preferred by Chief Officer Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Anr. against Order dated 23.03.2018 whereby the complaints were allowed by FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 13 of 40 learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur Circuit Bench in the following terms:
"I. All these six complaints bearing Nos, CC/16/69, CC/16/70, CC/16/96, CC/16/97, CC/16/98 and CC/16/137 are partly allowed as under.
II. The O.P.Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to deliver possession of the respective flat described in detail in each of the complaint to the respective complainant within six months from the date of this order. They shall also execute sale deed of the said flat within six months from the date of this order in favour of the respective complainant, by accepting from each of the complainant final price of the respective flat fixed by them, on the date of sale deed.
III The O.P.Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are also directed to pay to the respective complainant interest @ 15% PA. over the following amounts shown in the table from the date 01/05/2015 till delivery of the possession of the respective flat alongwith sale deed to each of them.
Sr. Complaint Flat No. Amount paid Additional Total
No. No. in Rs. Amount amount
demanded paid in Rs.
in Rs.
1. 16/69 E/107 43,62,375/- 7,06,894/- 43,62,375/-
(Not paid)
2. 16/70 E/108 31,97,907/- 47,870/-(Not 31,97,907/-
paid)
3. 16/96 D/1005 45,78,496/- 47,283/- 45,78,496/-
4 16/97 C/207 31,02,224/- 26,510/- 31,28,734/-
5. 16/98 A/414 28,79,019/- 29,448/- 29,08,467/-
6. 16/137 C/308 30,90,671/- 31,993/- 31,22,664/-
FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 14 of 40
IV. The O.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 are also directed to obtain "Occupation Certificate" and "No Objection Certificate" from Nagpur Municipal Corporation or any other requisite certificate from competent authority, within six months from the date of this order.
V. The O.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- to each of the complainant in each of the complaint.
VI. Copy of this order be furnished to both parties free of cost."
2. During course of submissions, it has been clarified that in six cases (i.e. FA Nos440/2018, 1116/2018, 1279/2018, 1280/2018, 1115/2018 and 1113/2018), possession has already been handed over and in remaining six matters, the opposite party is willing to hand over the possession as sought by the complainants therein, subject to payment of balance amount.
3. FA No.2334 of 2019 (Usha Suresh Thakare v. Chief Officer Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Anr.) along with cross appeal No. 440 of 2018 preferred on behalf of Chief Officer Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Anr. v. Usha Suresh Thakare, are taken as lead case for the purpose of disposal of appeals, since identical issues have been raised.
FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 15 of 40
The appellants and respondents are hereinafter referred to as the complainant/opposite party as appearing in the complaint for sake of convenience.
FA NO.440 OF 2018 AND FA NO.2334 OF 2018
4. The facts fall within a narrow compass. CC No. 17/2013 was preferred by Mrs. Usha Suresh Thakare against Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board (A MHADA Unit)/OP-1, Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority/OP-2, IVARCL Infrastructure & Project Ltd./OP-3 and Mitali Co-operative Housing Society/OP-4.
OP-1 and OP-2 are state-owned Housing Board formed by the State Government of Maharashtra; OP-3 is a Private Limited Company employed as a Contractor by OP-1 & OP-2 and OP-4 is the Cooperative Housing Society formed by the allottees.
5. As per the case of complainant, OP-2 purchased land by registered sale deed on 30.09.2003 and OP-1 & OP-2 launched the scheme called as MHADA City. Pursuant to advertisement made on behalf of OP-1 & 2 application for allotment of 3 BHK flats was made by the complainant whereupon flat No. D-1008 in Building No. 0-1, was allotted. The construction of flats was handed over by OP-1 & 2 to OP-3 and the project was proposed to have 320 flats to be completed in 24 months from 16.12.2010 to 15.12.2012. An amount of Rs.46,04,871/- FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 16 of 40 was paid by the complainant to OP-1 as demanded from time to time. However, OP-3 failed to complete the construction of flats within stipulated period. Illegal extensions for construction are alleged to have been granted by OP-1 and OP-2 to OP-3 from time to time till 31.03.2015 and since only 70% of the project was completed, Fine/penalty was also imposed on OP-3.
It is further the case of complainant that OP-1 to 3 obtained a fabricated and false Completion Certificate from Shri Rajesh Jaiswal, Architect which was submitted to Nagpur Municipal Corporation on 16.12.2013. Further, OP-1 & 2 failed to procure Occupancy Certificate and Building Completion Certificate as per Municipal Act and did not deliver possession to the complainant till filing of complaint. OP-1 to 3 are also alleged to have failed to procure environment clearance from Maharashtra Pollution Board prior to commencement of construction in respect of which show-cause notice was issued by the Competent Authority. The application for environment clearance was made on 21.10.2014 and criminal prosecution was launched against the officers of OP-1 under Section 15 and 16 of Environment Protection Act.
6. The grievance of complainant is that OP-1 to 3 failed to construct shopping centres, swimming pool and club house as assured. Further OP-4 recovered one time maintenance fees of Rs.3,00,000/- from the FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 17 of 40 complainant in the year 2015 before handing over the possession of flat by OP-1 and 2. A detailed representation dated 29.10.2015 was also given by OP-4 to OP-1 providing the list of incomplete work in project.
7. Complaint was accordingly filed before the learned State Commission seeking following reliefs:-
"i. Direction be given to the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 to provide promised facilities and amenities like Podium Garden, Gymnasium, Swimming Pool and Common Roads, within three months.
ii. Direction be given to the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 to pay interest at the rate of 16% p.a. over the paid amount of Rs. 46,04,871/-, amounting to Rs. 37,32,889.66 of which details are given in para No. 19 of the complaint.
iii. Direction be given to the O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for causing mental harassment by not giving possession of the flat, within stipulated period of two years.
iv. Direction be given to the O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 to execute the sale deed /lease deed for the said flat in favour of the complainant and to hand over possession of the flat immediately as the complainant has already paid the entire consideration.
v. Direction be given to the O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 to immediately obtain the necessary statutory sanctions and permissions from the various government departments and fulfill their obligations as builder. vi. Direction be given to O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,00,000/-to the complainant."FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 18 of 40
8. In the written version, OP-1 & 2 submitted that pursuant to an application for allotment of 3 BHK flat made by complainant, flat no. D- 1008 was allotted against consideration of Rs. 46,04,871/-, which was paid in installments. The work order for the project was issued by OP- 1/OP- 2 to OP-3 and was granted extension for completion of work on four occasions, including last extension till 31.03.2015.
The maintainability of the complaint was objected on the ground that subject matter pertains to „price of tenement‟ which is outside the purview of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The price of the allotted flat is stated to have been provisionally fixed which was subject to change during further course of construction. Any alleged unfair trade practice or deficiency in service was denied. The possession of flat is stated to have not been offered at the relevant time for want of OC.
9. OP-3 in a separate reply admitted that the work of construction of project called as MHADA City was entrusted to them which consisted of 320 flats. No cause of action arose against OP-3 since the subject matter of contract was entered between OP-3 and OP-1 and 2. The complaint was further claimed to be barred by limitation as it was not filed within two years from 31.12.2012. The construction work is stated to have been completed as per sanctions/clearance obtained by OP-1. It FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 19 of 40 was emphasized that no privity of contract existed between the complainant and OP-3.
Contentions on behalf of the Complainants
10. Learned counsel for complainant in FA No. 2334 of 2019 submits that the opposite party no. 1 and 2 despite Orders passed by the learned State Commission executed the sale deed only on 30.12.2019 and have failed to provide the facilities by way of Shopping Centre, Swimming Pool, Club House for the consumers. Further, opposite party failed to get statutory clearances and permissions as directed vide Order dated 17.01.2018. He emphasizes that compensation be enhanced and interest @ 18% per annum be awarded till decision of the present appeal since the requisite facilities have not been provided. In support of the contentions, reliance is further placed upon Shri Manohar Ganpatrao Burde v. The Chief Officer; Nagpur Housing Society and Area Development Board and two others, decided on 20/02/2017 by the Nagpur Circuit Bench State Commission Maharashtra in CC/16/52; Swarn Talwar and 2 others v. Unitech Ltd. in CC/347/2014 decided by Hon'ble National Commission by order dated 14/08/2015; M/s Utopia Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Shahin Bi Mulla in Appeal No. FA/1227/2014 decided on 01/04/2015 by the Hon'ble National Commission; Sundarjas FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 20 of 40 Kanyalal Bhatija & Ors. v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra & Ors with Prahalad Hiranand Advani & Ors. v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra & Ors., 1989 (3) SCC 396; Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Harish Kumar Purohit & Ors. with State of Rajasthan v. Kishanlal Banshal & Anr., (2003) 5 SCC 480; Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65; Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, II (2002) CPJ 22 SC; Fortune Infrastructure (Now known as M/s Hicon Infrastructure) & Anr. v. V. Trevor D'lima & Ors., II (2018) CPJ 1 (SC); Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. v. V. Vipul Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1131 and Venkataraman Krishnamurty & Anr. v. Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 182.
Contentions on behalf of Opposite Party
11. Learned counsel for opposite party No.1 & 2 reiterates factual position in detail and submits that appellant is a statutory body functioning under Maharashtra Housing Area Development Act, 1976 to provide affordable housing to people in Maharashtra and cannot be compared with private developers. The Board purchased land owned by Maharashtra Textile Corporation for a consideration of Rs.24.13 crores and was divided into seven plots for construction. The Scheme titled as FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 21 of 40 MHADA City was published for allotment of 320 tenements and the complainants were successful for allotment. Necessary approvals for construction and lay-out plan were granted by Nagpur Municipal Corporation on which the construction was entrusted to OP-3 (M/s.IVRCL infrastructure and Project Ltd.). The work was to commence from 16.12.2010 to be completed in 24 months by 15.12.2012. However, the actual work commenced in May, 2011 due to remnants of Empress Mills being found on excavation. He emphasizes that the brochure/offer letter did not mention as to when the flats were to be completed. Further, the price of tenements offered to complainant for Rs.46,04,871/- (in present FA) was tentative. An application for Occupancy Certificate was submitted to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation on 16.12.2013, since minor works were to be completed. Further, second and third extensions were granted to the contractor from 01.07.2013 to 31.12.2013 and from 01.01.2014 to 30.04.2014 and at the time of granting fourth extension, a penalty was imposed on the contractor on 01.05.2014. In the meanwhile, on 24.06.2014 as directed by Assistant Director, Town Planning, Nagpur Municipal Corporation vide letter dated 24.06.2014, a request for NOC was made to Environment Department. In response to Show-Cause Notice issued to the Board (OP-1) by Government of Maharashtra, Environment Department for failing to FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 22 of 40 procure the environmental clearance from MPCB as per notification dated 14.09.2006, it was informed that notification in question was not applicable as the area under construction was much less. Learned counsel points out that in view of the directions given by Deputy Secretary, Environment to not to give sanctions/permissions, the work of project was stopped for reasons beyond control of OP-1 & OP-2. However, the prosecution initiated by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board did not sustain and appellant Board was discharged vide Order dated 30.03.2017 by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Thereafter, the Environment Department issued NOC on 18.04.2017 and accordingly Occupancy Certificate was requested from NMC. NMC communicated vide letter dated 26.05.2017 that Occupancy Certificate can be granted after compliance of terms and conditions stipulated by State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. Further, permission was granted by OP-1 to some of the allottees to get furniture etc. made in their flats on 09.09.2019. In the meanwhile, the impugned Order dated 17.01.2018 was passed by the learned State Commission. He points out that the appellant executed Sale Deed on 20.12.2019.
12. On merits, learned counsel for the opposite party contends that directions issued by learned State Commission levying interest @ 15% per annum are uncalled for, since no deadline was provided for FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 23 of 40 allotment/possession of flats and the delay in handing over possession was due to reasons not attributable to the Board. He further submits that there is no deficiency in rendering any service by OP-1 & 2 and emphasizes that since the cost of the flats had escalated more than three times, no loss can be presumed to the complainants. In support of the contentions, reliance is further placed on Lucknow Development Authority v. Colonel D.K. Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1375; B.B. Patel & Ors. v. DLF Universal Limited, (2022) 6 SCC 742 and Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC
711.
13. Learned counsel for the opposite party/OP-1 & OP-2 also placed written submissions on record and detailed the position of allotment of flats in respect 12 complainants, which may be reproduced for reference:-
FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 24 of 40
"FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 25 of 40 FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 26 of 40 FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 27 of 40 FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 28 of 40
"FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 29 of 40
14. We have given considered thought to the contentions raised and perused the record.
Learned State Commission held that since there is no privity of contract between complainant and OP-3, who was engaged by OP-1 & 2 as a Contractor, no relationship of consumer and service provider exists between them. On the point of limitation, it was further observed that since the time for completion of work was extended by OP-1 till 31.01.2015 and the complaint had been preferred on 03.02.2017, the complaint, on the face of record, had been filed within two years from 31.03.2015 and was within limitation. It was further noticed that since complainant during the course of proceedings did not wish to proceed against OP-4, complaint was dismissed against it. At this stage itself, we may additionally observe that the failure to deliver the possession of flats constitutes a recurring and continuing cause of action as held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Meerut Development Authority v. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CAJ 12. As such, the complaint is within limitation. Further, apparently, there is no privity of contract between complainant and OP-3 (Contractor) and as such finding of learned State Commission in this regard is upheld.
FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 30 of 40
15. Learned State Commission further held that since OP-1 & 2 had invited applications for allotment of flats against consideration, the relationship of consumer and service provider is created and, as such, the complaint is maintainable under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was categorically held that complaint does not relate to fixation of price of the flats and points to deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party.
We find no infirmity in the aforesaid findings of the learned State Commission and find no reasons to take a different view.
16. However, the relief awarded to complainants needs to be suitably modified in view of findings by National Commission in an identical case relating to same project in FA No.796 of 2019 (Chief Officer Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Ors. v. Manohar Burde) which was upheld by Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4383 of 2025. In the aforesaid case, learned State Commission in an identical matter directed (i) to complete the construction of Flat No.E/102 in Building No.2 of MHADA City Nagpur, in all respects and obtain "No Objection Certificate" within six months and shall deliver possession of the flat along with "occupation certificate" and deed of conveyance after getting balance price (ii) to pay interest @ 15% per annum on the amount deposited by the respondent from 01.07.2013 till the date of FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 31 of 40 delivery of possession (iii) in the event of impossibility to obtain "occupation certificate" within six months, the respondent would be entitled to recover entire amount deposited by him along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of realization and compensation of Rs.10/- lacs (iv) the appellants would pay Rs.10000/- for mental agony and harassment and cost of Rs.25000/-."
In FA 796/2019 preferred by the Housing Board, this Commission modified the directions relying upon the judgments passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in paragraph 10 and 11 as under:-
"10. Supreme Court in Banglore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 442, Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D'Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442 and Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 438, held that a home buyer cannot be made to wait for possession of the flat for indefinite period.
11. Supreme Court in Banglore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 442, held that in the matter of contractual obligation, there is scope for compensation for mental agony and harassment. In DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, II (2019) CPJ 117 (SC) held when interest is awarded as compensation in the cases of refund of money, then awarding additional compensation was not justified. Now Supreme Court in the cases of Ireao Grace Realteck (P) Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna, (2021) 3 SCC 241 and Civil appeal No.2324 of 2021 M/s. Barnala Builders and Property Consultants Vs. Lt.Col. Sameer Balodi FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 32 of 40 (decided on 06.06.2021), has fixed the interest @9% per annum in the cases of refund.
ORDER In view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of State Commission dated 07.02.2019 is modified. The appellants are directed to refund entire amount deposited by the respondent with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of actual payment, within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. The respondent would also be entitled for a consolidated cost of Rs.50000/-."
17. The Order passed by the National Commission was further challenged on behalf of the complainant therein before the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court. In Writ Petition No. 5052 of 2022, reduction of interest from 15% to 9% p.a. by NCDRC was set aside and interest was awarded @ 15% p.a. relying upon Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. v. Vipul Ltd. (supra).
Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4383 of 2025 preferred by Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board, set aside the Order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay and restored the Order passed by the NCDRC whereby interest at the rate of 9% was awarded on the respective deposits till the date of actual payment. Further, the compensation awarded by learned State Commission was reduced to from Rs.10 lacs to Rs.7.5 lacs in the peculiar facts and circumstances of FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 33 of 40 the case. The reasons and observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in paragraphs 14 and 15 may be beneficially reproduced:
"14. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the case papers, we are of the considered view that the NCDRC having taken note of the relevant aspects including the factum of delay and the fact that petitioner had opted for refund of money deposited, rightly held that as a home buyer, petitioner cannot be compelled to take possession of the flat after such long time, and as such ordered for refund of entire amount deposited with interest of 9% p.a. Placing reliance on the law laid down by this Court in 'Bangalore Development Authority & Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711', wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dealing with the question of grant of relief to a consumer in cases of delay of delivery of possession held that when possession of the allotted plot/flat/house is not delivered within the specified time, the allottee is entitled to a refund of the amount paid with reasonable interest thereon from the date of payment till the date of refund. The Court summarized the general principles and in particular para 10(f) observed as follows-
"Where the plot/flat/house has been allotted at a tentative or provisional price, subject to final determination of price on completion of the project (that is acquisition proceedings and development activities), the development authority will be entitled to revise or increase the price. But where the allotment is at a fixed price, and a higher price or extra payments are illegally or unjustifiably demanded and collected, the allottee will be entitled to refund of such excess with such interest, as may be determined with reference to the facts of the case."
In the present case, the High Court by the impugned order modified the finding of NCDRC and awarded interest @ 15% p.a. primarily FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 34 of 40 relying upon the judgment of this Court in 'Rohit Chaudhary and another v. Vipul Ltd., (2024) 1 SCC 8', wherein this Court in order to balance the equities and to compensate the loss caused to the purchaser/complainant who had booked an office premise for his use, directed the refund of the amount paid along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment. However, the issue in the instant case relates to allotment of a 3 BHK flat after payment of sale consideration and delay in delivery of same. As such, the NCDRC considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, had awarded interest @ 9% p.a., which in our view was fair and reasonable. The interest @ 15% p.a. awarded by High Court is excessive. Therefore, the impugned order hereby is set-aside and the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by NCDRC in so far as it relates to award of interest @9% on the respective deposit till the date of actual payment is restored.
15. As already discussed above, this Court at the time of issuing notice on this appeal, noted that the appellants have already deposited the entire amount with interest 15% p.a. including Rs. 10,00,000/- as ordered by SCDRC. Having regard to the fact that the appellant herein is an instrumentality of State, the delay if any, cannot be attributed to any personal animosity of the officers manning the institution and they have been discharging the statutory duties. Considering the aforesaid and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to reduce the compensation payable from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs.7,50,000/-as it would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the order stands modified to the extent above referred to. The appeal stands partly allowed with no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand consigned to records."
FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 35 of 40
18. The grant of interest in cases for refund of amount, @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposit till date of refund stands crystalized by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4383 of 2025 Chief Officer Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Ors. v. Manohar Burde (supra) as referred to above. We may further notice that in said case, compensation of Rs.10 lacs was reduced to Rs.7.5 lacs by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case observing that the amount had already been deposited by MHADA.
19. We are of the considered view that since the complaints relate to same scheme, there is apparent deficiency of service as the construction of the flats could not be completed and possession thereof could not be handed over within the stipulated period despite payments being largely made as demanded by OP-1 & OP-2. The complainants had paid the amounts hoping for delivery of possession in a timely manner. The stand taken by OP-1 & OP-2 that construction could not be completed for reasons beyond their control and NOC was not issued by Nagpur Municipal Corporation for want of Environmental clearance, does not absolve OP-1 & 2 of the responsibility of timely delivery of flats. MHADA ought to have taken necessary steps for completion of project in a time bound manner with a grace period of 06 months and cannot be left unaccounted for delays in completing the construction. Hon‟ble Apex FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 36 of 40 Court in Banglore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 442, Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442 and Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. v. Devasis Rudra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 438 has held that a home buyer cannot be made to wait for possession of the flat for an indefinite period.
20. All the present cases relate to delivery of possession wherein delayed compensation @ 15% p.a. has been awarded along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- except FA No.220 of 2020 (Sonalkumar Sureschandra Gupta v. The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board) wherein interest on delayed compensation was directed to be awarded @ 9% p.a. Also, it may be noticed that cross- appeals have only been preferred by complainants in FA No.2334 of 2019 (Usha Suresh Thakare v. The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board) and FA No.220 of 2020 (Sonalkumar Sureschandra Gupta v. The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board) for enhancement of interest and compensation.
21. The issue for determination is regarding the interest rate to be awarded on the delayed compensation. In the aforesaid context, reference may be made to Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleva Sultana & Ors. V. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., (2020) FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 37 of 40 16 SCC 512, wherein Hon‟ble Apex Court in para 54 & 69.1 directed for payment of delayed compensation @ 6% p.a.:-
"54. The general appreciation in land values results in an increase in the value of the investment made by the buyers. Difficulties in determining the measure of compensation cannot however dilute the liability to pay. A developer who has breached a clear representation which has been made to the buyers of the amenities which will be provided to them should be held accountable to the process of law.
...................
69.1 The first and second respondents shall, as a measure of compensation, pay an amount calculated @ 6 per cent simple interest per annum to each of the appellants. The amount shall be computed on the total amounts paid towards the purchase of the respective flats with effect from the date of expiry of thirty-six months from the execution of the respective ABAs until the date of the offer of possession after receipt of the occupation certificate."
Further, the rate of delayed compensation @ 6% p.a. has been followed in DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Capital Greens Flat Buyers Assn., (2021) 5 SCC 537 as under:-
"It is true that in the present case, the contractual rate of Rs.10 per square foot per month is double the rate fixed in the agreements in the above case. On the other hand, the Court must be conscious of the fact that the situation in the real estate market in Delhi is very distinct from that in Bengaluru both in terms of rentals and land values. This has not been disputed. The flat buyers had to suffer on account of a substantial delay on the part of the appellants. In such a situation, they cannot be constrained to the compensation of Rs.10 per square foot provided by the agreements for flat purchase. However, having regard to all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the compensation on account of delay should be brought down from 7% to 6%. Moreover, the amount, if FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 38 of 40 any, which has been paid in terms of the contractual rate shall be adjusted while computing the balance."
22. The rate of interest in case of delayed compensation has been granted by the learned State Commission @ 15% p.a. and 9% p.a. as noticed above. However, admittedly, delay in handing over of possession and obtaining of Occupancy Certificate has been on account of initiation of proceedings against MHADA by the Environment Department. Further, the officials were even subsequently discharged as the relevant notification requiring sanction was inapplicable. The delay cannot be attributed to any personal animosity of the officers manning the institution and have been discharging statutory duties in instrumentality of the State. Since this Commission in the recent cases of delayed compensation where possession has been taken over by the complainants, has awarded interest @ 6% p.a.; the delayed compensation in present cases is directed to be paid @ 6% p.a. from 01.05.2015 till delivering of possession of respective flats. It would also be equitable if the same amount of compensation is maintained in respect of present bunch of appeals. We hereby further confirm the compensation awarded @ Rs.50,000/- to the allottees in present bunch of appeals with litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.
FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 39 of 40
Order passed by the learned State Commission in respective CCs is accordingly modified only to aforesaid extent. Appeals filed by MHADA are accordingly partially allowed. Sale deed shall be further executed by OP No.1 & 2 in respect of pending cases in the present appeals on receipt of balance payment, if any due, from the complainants after adjusting the amount payable on account of delayed possession. Cross-appeals filed in FA No.2334/2019 and 220/2020 seeking enhancement of interest on delayed possession and compensation, are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, in respective appeals also stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be placed in respective appeals and be also provided to respective parties, by the Registry.
............................................. (AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.) PRESIDING MEMBER ........................................... (ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J) MEMBER ar/sd/B-4/reserved matter FA/440/2018 & other connected appeals Page 40 of 40