State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs.Irfana Begum Vazir Ahmed Siddiqui vs Mr.Sufiyan Aslam Qureshi Proprietor Of ... on 12 May, 2026
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.SC/27/CC/22/04
Mrs. Irfana Begum Vazir Ahmed Siddiqui
Flat No. 501-B, Shelter Arcade,
Plot No. 26, Sector No.42,
Opp. D-Mart, Seawoods, Nerul (W),
Navi Mumbai-400706. ....Complainant
VERSUS
1. Mr. Sufiyan Aslam Qureshi Prop.
2. Mr. Yusuf Salim Chaudhary Prop./Director
3. Mr. Junaid Salim Chaudhary
Director of M/s. Mega Group
4. Mr. Mansoori Abdul Rehman Abdulla
Associate of Mr. Sufiyan Aslam Qureshi
5. Mr. Chand Basha Dastagir Shaikh
Associate of Mr. Sufiyan Aslam Qureshi
All having Office at Shop No. 109,
Satra Plaza, Plot No. 19/20,
Sector No.19-D, Palm Beach Road,
Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. ....Opponents
BEFORE :
Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon'ble Member.
APPEARANCE :
For Complainant: : Adv. Vinod S. Sontakke
For Opponents No. 1 to 3 : Adv. Rajkumar Jagtap
For Opponents No. 4 & 5 : Ex- Parte
JUDGEMENT
(12/05/2026) Per: Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon'ble Member
1. The present Consumer Complaint No. CC/2022/04 filed by the complainants against Opponents under the provisions of Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
22. The brief facts of the case of Complainant that she is a senior citizen as above in a joint family. The Complainant was searching a flat on the ownership basis for her in the vicinity of Navi Mumbai, and in the said process, in September 2013, the Complainant came into contact with Opponent No. 4, who introduced himself to be associate of Opponent No. 1, 2, 3 and also works under them as a supervisor. Opponent No. 4 dishonestly induced the Complainant by the false representation that Opponent No.1 has already started construction of the residential building by name as MEGA ATMOS, on Plot No. 117, Sector- 18, Ulwe, Tal Panvel, Dist Raigad, Navi Mumbai. Opponent No. 4 has also represented that Opponent No.1 is an honest developer, who had undertaken the construction work in the association of Opponent No. 2 and 3, who are the directors of M/s. MEGA Group, a big company having several residential projects in the Navi Mumbai area. Opponent No. 5 works as account manager of the company of Opponent No. 1, 2, & 3.
3. Complainant stated that before coming into contact with Opponent No. 1, 2, & 3 she wanted to see the site and location and being inspired by Opponent No. 4's representation. After visiting the site she saw the signboard of MEGA Group, having its address mentioned in the title of the complaint, with the name of the building as "MEGA ATMOS". The signboard also was bearing the mobile no. of Opponent No. 2 and 3. After visiting the site and Opponents enticed the Complainant to purchase the flat in their building, therefore she decided to purchase Flat No. 701 adm. about 422 sq. ft carpet area on the top Floor as a 7-storey building to be constructed on Plot No. 117, Sector No.18, Ulwe Node, Tal Panvel, Dist - Raigad (hereinafter referred to as suit flat)
4. Complainant stated that the Opponent No. 4, immediately on the next day, took Complainant, in the office of Opponent No. 1, 2,& 3 and at that time all 3 Opponents were present in the office at Arenja Comer, Sector No. 17. Vashi which was the temporary office, as their office at Satra Plaza was under
renovation. Opponent No. 1 disclosed himself as a proprietor of M/S. MEGA Realtors, who owns the land on the record of right. Opponent No. 1 represented 3 that the entire finance investment for purchasing the plot was made by Opponent No. 2 and 3 who are directors of company M/s. MEGA Group, in support of which Complainant relies on the official website showing Opponent No. 2 and 3 as directors. In the first meeting the Opponents No. 1, 2, 3 self- praised stating that they are established builders and honest in their process of transaction, and in the same fashion, Opponents No. 2 and 3 have also represented to be directors of M/s. MEGA Group, which is the company having many residential projects in Navi Mumbai and promised to the Complainant that she would not face an AD flats she would choose and also promised to handover the possession of suit flat in time.
5. Complainant stated that, the Complainant booked, one suit flat in their building known as MEGA ATMOS, and said suit flat is purchased by the Complainant from Opponent No. 1, 2, 3 at Rs. 40,50,180/-. Opponent represented to the Complainant that there is a huge demand for top floor i.e. 7th Floor and if Complainant pays substantial amount at the initial stage only, top floor flat can be allotted though at that stage only plinth/foundation work was going on and demanded full consideration of Rs. 40, 50,180/- at the time of booking only as Opponent came to know Complainant is very much keen to purchase top floor Flat No. 701.
6. The Complainant further stated that in pursuant to the negotiation, the Opponents asked the Complainant to pay Rs. 20, 00,000/- by Cash on 8/11/2013, at the office of the Opponents at Satra Plaza, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Out of which they issued receipt of Rs 17, 10, 000/- on a plain paper which is received and signed by Opponent No. 3, who owned and claimed, the director of M/s. MEGA GROUP. Opponent No. 4 and son-in-law of the Complainant, has signed as a witness on the receipt. On the next day dated 9/11/2013 Opponent No. 1 issued an allotment letter dated 14/10/2013 wherein the Opponents have mentioned the selling price of the suit flat of Rs.20,50,180/- and on 25/10/2013 the Opponents have received Rs.6,15,054/- by two cheques towards the service tax, cess tax, vat. The Complainant did not bother whatever 4 amount was shown on the allotment letter, as a Complainant wants to pay a total consideration amount of Rs. 40,50,180/- and to get possession of flat hence went on paying the money to Opponents.
7. The Complainant further stated that after paying Rs.20, 00,000/- by Cash on 08/11/2013, the Opponent No. 1 thereafter has executed Agreement on 03/12/2013 and same is registered with sub-registrar Panvel on 04/12/2013. As per the demand of the Opponents the Complainant has paid Rs.20,50,180/- by cash, which was the balance consideration of Rs.40,50,180/- and Opponent No. 1 acknowledged the receipt of Rs.20,50,180in the receipt clause and also acknowledged the receipt of Rs.6,15,154/-.The Opponents have received consideration on the day of Agreement for sale being registered and according to Opponents, the additional amount was taken towards the service tax, vat, stamp duty, registration charges society formation charges, other legal charges for registration and promised to hand over the possession within the short period. The Opponents have to handover the possession of the suit flat on or before 31/08/2015 in view of Clause No. 19 of the said Agreement, however, the Opponents have failed to handover the possession of the suit Flat amounting to deficiency of service and in spite of it they have terminated the Agreement illegally and unlawfully by sending Letter dated 11/07/2016. Over and above the Opponents have also issued a Notice to the Complainant through their Advocate 03 dated 11/07/2016 for cancellation of the Agreement. Both the termination Letter and Advocate Notice are illegal unlawful, and not binding unless it is set aside by Court. The Flat Agreement is legal, valid, binding, and enforceable against all the Opponents.
8. The Complainant further stated that the Opponents were insisting to pay an amount of Rs.3, 08,370/- by way of sending the Demand Letter dated 27/06/2016. Opponents also threatened Complainant to pay the same within 10 days otherwise Agreement would be terminated therefore under duress, the son of the Complainant, Manzoor Siddiqui has transferred the amount of Rs.3, 08,970/- on 02/07/2016 as per their demand and in spite of it, the Opponents 5 with ulterior motives returned the said amount in the account of Manzoor Siddiqui on 13/07/2016. In fact, there was no reason or issue to return the said amount but have to accept the same and have to hand over the possession of the flat with the compensation as there is a delay on the part of Opponents Builders. They purposely and deliberately refused to accept the said amount in order to cheat and deceive the Complainant by way of playing such tactics, amounting to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
9. The Complainant further stated that he has become the owner and Opponents Builders have no rights to claim on the flat and in spite of receiving the entire extra amount, the Opponents have grabbed movable and immovable property of the Complainant, without having any reason.
10. Complainant further stated that the letter of demand on dated 27/06/2016 is illegal, unlawful and invalid, and contradictory against the terms and conditions of the Agreement dated 03/12/2013. In view of Paragraph No. 5 of the Agreement, it is written that the Opponent builder shall have the right to charge delay payment charges at the rate of 12% per annum till payment of instalment, in alliance with it, the Complainant has deposited the entire extra amount as per the convenient of the Opponent builder, who has to return the extra amount of Rs. 17,23,997/- with 12% interest per month except Rs.40,50,180/- which was paid towards flat purchase. In view of Paragraph No. 8 of the Agreement, the Opponent builder never intimated to the Complainant regarding the instalment therefore they cannot issue a demand letter dated 27/06/2016 which is contrary to the terms of the Agreement.
11. Complainant further stated that the suit flat is given by the Opponent builder on leave and license basis to rental and accruing 8,000/- per month 11/07/2016 to 11/07/2019 for 36 months from the date of termination of Agreement dated 11/07/2016 and have also received a deposit of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the rental therefore the builder have to reimburse the same with 8% per annum which comes to Rs.3,57,120/- Thereafter the Opponent builder has kept the suit flat vacant for the reason best known to them. The 6 Complainant has paid Rs. 57,74,177/- as a principal amount till today to the Opponent builders, same may be returned to Complainant at the rate of 12% per annum till 11/07/2021, which comes to Rs.92,38,683/- from the date of termination of notice and further interest may be imposed either till the decision of the complaint or till its realization or otherwise vacant and peaceful possession of the flat to the Complainant.
12. The Complainant further stated that the Opponents have acted illegally and unlawfully against the terms and conditions of the Agreement and against the provisions of law, whereby rights of the Complainant are deprived by Opponents jointly and severally. The letter of demand dated 27/06/2016 and advocate notice dated 11/06/2016 are illegal, unlawful not binding on the Complainant, which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
13. Complainant stated that, in order to avoid, giving possession of the suit flat to the Complainant, including the payment with interest, the Opponent builders have filed for S.C.S No. 291/2016 in Panvel Court for want of cancellation of deed of Agreement for sale. The said suit is false and frivolous and not enforceable in the eyes of law and filed with the intention to delay the complete transaction, which amounts to deficiency of service. The Opponent should have given possession of the flat on or before August 2015 but they failed and neglected to give it on time to the Complainant. Thereafter Complainant called the Opponent and sent them an email on so many occasions but they ignore the same. The Complainant kept asking the Opponent regarding the completion of the construction via email and calls but the still Opponent never notified her about the outstanding payment if any. The Opponent did not send any completed work, nor gave her any information, regarding notice by themselves or through their advocate to inform the Complainant about the outstanding amount from 04/01/2016 to 27/06/2016. Her elder son had also transferred the amount from his own account into the account of the Opponent at that time Opponent did not take any objection, now Opponent have refused to 7 accept the same from her younger son namely Manzoor Siddiqui, for the reason best known to them.
14. The Complainant further stated that the building is completed on 04/01/2016, however, they have not given any copy of OC to the Complainant in fact, OC is obtained by them on 1/10/2016 this fact is concealed by Opponents in order to cheat the Complainant and defeat her claim. Therefore she prayed to allowed the complaint and give relief as per her prayer clause.
15. Upon admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the all Opponents. Accordingly Opponent No.1 to 3 is appeared through counsel and filed Written Version with documents; Opponent No.4 & 5 has been duly served but not appeared hence Ex-party order has been passed. The pleadings of complainant and Opponent No.1 to 3 have been taken on record.
CONTENTION OF THE OPPONENT NO.1 TO 3
16. In defence, Opponent No.1 to 3 submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexations and deserves to be dismissed or disposed of with compensatory costs as the complainant had filed this complaint with ulterior motives and malafide intention to harass to the Opposite Parties.
17. The Opponent No.2 and 3 are not concern with construction activities of the Opponent No.1 and they are not developer of the building in which the complainant purchased the flat and in spite of that they have been added as Opponent No.2 and 3 in the present complaint. The Opponent No.2 and 3 have nothing to do with present transaction the land on which building is constructed is owned by present Opponent No.1, the transaction pertaining flat no 701 is executed by and between Opponent No.1 and Complainant, it is Opponent No.1 who is premotor of said building, hence Opponent No.2 and 3 be termed as service provider and there is no consumer and service provider relation between the Opponent No.2 and 3 and Complainant.
18. Opponent No.1 to 3 stated that the complaint filed by the complainant is 8 hopelessly barred by the law of limitation. The complaint filed by the complainant is being filed beyond the period of limitation cannot be entertained by the present commission. The Agreement for Sale dated 03/12/2013 which was registered on 04/12/2023 under document no.7961-2013 the complainant had purchased flat no. 701 situated at Mega Atmos, Plot No. 117, Sector-18, Ulwe, Navi Mumbai from the Opponent No.1 and the consideration amount mentioned in a registered Agreement for Sell dated 3rd December 2013 is Rs.20,50,180/- and as per the terms and conditions of the registered agreement the Complainant have to pay the consideration amount to the Opponent No.1 and by letter of demand dated 27/06/2016 the Opponent No.1 demanded the payment of Rs.3,08,970/- from the Complainant and she was directed to pay the said dues within 10 days and it was informed to the Complainant that in the event of failure to pay the balance amount her agreement dated 03/12/2013 in respect of flat No.701 will stand terminated. In spite of receipt of the said demand notice the Complainant failed to pay dues from her account to the Opposite Party No.1 hence by issuing legal notice dated 11/07/2016 to the Complainant the Opposite Party No.1 terminated the agreement dated 03/12/2023 and as per the clause no.6 of the agreement the Opposite Party No.1 deducted Rs.5,12,545/- from out of total consideration amount of Rs. 20,50,180/- and return amount of Rs. 11,27,559/- by way of Cheque bearing No.285807 dated 12/07/2016 drawn on Yes Bank. The said notice and said cheque was received by the Complainant and hence after cancellation of the flat by issuing legal notice dated 11/07/2016 the cause of action was arises to the Complainant against the Opposite Party No.1 after receipt of termination notice dated 11/07/2016 but the complainant was silent to initiate any legal proceeding against the Opposite Party No.1 for more than 5 years and 6 months and have filed the present complaint on 10/01/2022 after 5 years and 6 months from the date of arising of the cause of action and hence, the present complaint filed by the Complainant is barred by law of limitation and is deserved to be dismissed on that ground. it is evident that the termination notice was issued on 11/07/2016 that date which is well within the knowledge of the present 9 complainant and if at all there was some truth in the grievances of the complainant then complainant would have approached this Commission within 2 years from the date of the receipt of termination letter the cause of action for filing present complaint aroused on 11/07/2016 or on the date when termination was communicated to the Complement which in present case is admittedly in the month of July 2016, hence even if the period of limitations is counted from the date of knowledge of termination of the said flat the present complaint apparently barred by law of limitation as prescribed under section 69 of the Act, to add to that there is no reason given by the complainant why she could not approach the consumer commission immediately after receipt of the termination letter or have not filed any application for delay condonation while filing of the present complaint to condone delay and hence the present complaint filed in the year 2022 is barred by limitation.
19. Opponent No.1 to 3 stated that the complaint filed by the complainant is deserves to be dismissed on the ground of want of pecuniary jurisdiction also, as the total consideration of the Flat no. 701 was fixed to the tune of rupees 20,50,180/- and complainant have falsely stated in her complaint that she has paid total consideration of Rs. 57,74,177/-to the Opposite Party No.1 but fact is that she had paid only sum of Rs. 17,23,997/- to the Opposite Party No 1 and same has been return to the complainant after deduction of 25% of the consideration price by way of cheque and hence this Commission have no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.
20. Opponent No.1 to 3 stated that the complaint is deserves to be dismissed with compensatory costs on the ground of non-disclosure of material facts and intentionally not disclosed of vital and material facts pertaining to the facts in issue and the complainant is guilty of deliberate suppression of material facts. The Complainant had only stated in the complaint that the Opponent No.1 on 20/07/2016 have filed special civil suit no.291/2016 against the complainant for seeking relief of execution of cancellation deed pertaining Flat no. 701, and for further relief of injunction but have not produced any documents of the civil suit 10 as well as her written statement. It is also a matter of record that in special civil suit no. 291/2016 this present Complainant have appeared through advocate and thereafter on 17/03/2017 the complainant has even filed her Written Statement and the proceedings in the said special civil suit no.291/2016 are still pending for hearing. Hence, complaint filed by the complainant is deserves to be dismissed with compensatory costs on the ground of non-disclosure of material facts. That from the perusal of the said relief claimed by the Opponent Party No. 1 against the complainant in the said civil suit it can be seen that the subject matter of the said civil suit is pertaining flat no. 701 and transaction of the Opposite Party No.1 with the complainant pertaining flat number 701.
21. Opponent No.1 to 3 submitted that, the subject of termination of the said flat vide notice dated 11/07/2016 is prayed to be declared as a valid, it can be further seen that in view of the aforesaid termination of flat number 701 the Opponent No.1 have specifically prayed for the directions against the complainant to execute cancellation deed in favour of the Opponent No.1. hence the substantial matter in issue in the present complaint is already-sub-juiced before the Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Panvel in special civil suit no. 291/2016 between the same parties, the Hon'ble civil court is in charge of the disputes between the complainant and the Opponent No.1, the subject matter of the suit is flat number 701 the crux of the issue involved in the said civil suits pertains to the transaction between the Opponent No.1 and the complainant suit is with regard to the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale dated 3rd December 2013 executed by and between the Opponent No.1 and the complainant the interpretations of the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the rights and obligations contained in the said agreements and which are binding and enforceable vice versa between/against the complainant and Opponent No.1, suit involves questions to be decided on the aspect of the issuance of termination notice, the issue about failure of the complainant to pay the consideration amount in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said agreement and consequently the relief of the Opponent No.1 seeking 11 declaration that the termination is valid legal binding upon the complainant and further relief of mandatory pertaining flat number 701. The issue involved in the said directions against the complainant to execute cancellation deed pertaining flat number 701, hence all the issues which are tried to be put before the Consumer Commission are already sub-judiced before the Hon'ble Civil Court, Panvel and any decision on the aforesaid aspect by this Commission may prejudicially affect the claim or defence of either party to the suit which will result in miscarriage of justice, hence it is not open for the Complainant to approach before this Commission with identical issues with identical cause based on same cause of action, and on this count itself the present complaint deserves to be rejected.
22. The Complainant have further intentionally suppressed that the complainant along with her son-in-law had approached APMC Police Station Vashi in the year 2016 and consequently FIR No. 216/2016 dated 9/9/2016 was filed against the present Opposite Party No.1, that after the thorough investigation the officers of the APMC police station had filed C summary in the said FIR to the effect that the transaction is of a civil nature, that the compliant the Complainant had filed a protest petition in the summary on 09/02/2017 date, and on the basis of the protest petition the Hon'ble Ld. JMFC vide order dated 17/05/2017 had rejected the C summary and directed to treat the FIR as Private complaint, again they said order the present Opponent No.1 to 3 with other accused had filed Revision Application No. 195/2017 before the Hon'ble Court of District Judge and Additional Session Judge Thane, the Hon'ble court was pleased to allow the said Revision Applications and quashed said order, and vide order dated 25/01/2017 directed the Ld JMFC to decide the matter afresh from the stage of C summary, thereafter this present complainant on 13/08/2021 have filed one separate private complaint bearing 1238/2021 before the Hon'ble Court of Learned JMFC, Vashi, Navi Mumbai and that the Hon'ble court of Ld. JMFC vide order dated 12/08/2021 have taken cognizance of the said private complaint of the complainant and there is order of issuing the process against the present Opposite Party no. 1 to 3 and other persons have been exonerated by 12 the Hon'ble court on the ground that they have no connections at all with the present transaction, that is further suppressed by the complainant that against the said order of issuing the process, the Opponent No.1 had filed Revision application no. 154/2021 before the court of District and Additional Session Judge and the Hon'ble court vide order dated 11/11/2021 have stayed the said order of issuing the process and the presently the matter is pending before the Hon'ble court of District Judge and Additional Session Judge, Thane. It was highly important for the complainant to mention in her complaint al the aforesaid events with its dates however the complainant have intentionally suppressed the above mentioned facts only with a view to create illusion or to suppress the circumstances which will categorically had brought before this Hon'ble Commission fact that the cause of action to file the present complaint is hopelessly bared by limitation and there was nothing preventing the complainant to approach this commission as early as possible within 2 years from the date of cause of action. The aforesaid facts are deliberately suppressed from this Hon'ble Commission by the complainant. As the Complainant substantially failed to perform her obligations under the said Agreement in respect of the payment of balance amount, the Opponent No. 1 have duly invoked his right under clause 6 of the said Agreement which give authority to the Opponent No.1 to terminate the Agreement in the event default to pay the instalments of balance amount of considerations. In accordance with demand letter dated 27/06/2016 the Agreement for Sale dated 03/12/2013 have stood terminated on 09/07/2016, however the Complainant on 14/07/2016 called in the office of the Opponent No.1 and quarrelled with the concern staff and told that the Opponent No.1 could not terminate the said Agreement and the Complainant threatened to take forceful possession of the said flat, The Complainant intends to wrongfully claim her right to the said flat which is already duly terminated, the Opponent No.1 apprehended that the complainant by doing same will try to encroach upon the said flat or there is every possibility that the complainant may misuse the said Agreement for Sale to create third party claim in respect of the said flat in order to harass the Opposite Party No.3, 13 hence the Opponent No.1 had to file instituted Special Civil Suit No. 291/2016 against the Complainant before the Court of CJSD Panvel for directions to execute Cancellation Deed in respect of Flat No. 701 and the summons/notice in the suit are duly seven on complainant and even she had filed her written statement on 17/03/2017, the suit is pending for hearing and in spite of knowledge of the said civil suit the complainant had not filed present complaint within two years from the receipt of termination notice, hence the complaint filed by the complainant is hopelessly time barred and hence same is liable to be reject of this ground only.
23. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties at length; perused the complaint with annexures, the Written Version of Opposite party, the affidavits of evidence of the both parties and the documents placed on record as well as citation of record filed by the both parties, upon a comprehensive appraisal of the pleadings, materials and submissions available, the following points arise for our determination and are answered as set out hereinafter.
SN Points Findings
1 Whether the complaint is barred by the Law of Negative
Limitation?
2 Whether the complaint is barred by the pecuniary Negative
jurisdiction
3 Whether the pendency of a Civil Suit (S.C.S No. Negative
291/2016) bars the jurisdiction of this Commission?
4 Whether the termination of the Agreement by the Affirmative
Opponents amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair
trade practice?
5 What order? As per final
Order
REASONS
Point No.1
24. In this present consumer complaint, regarding the contention of the Opponents that the complaint is barred by the Law of Limitation. This 14 Commission observed that such a plea is legally untenable in the present circumstances. The Opponents argued that the cause of action arose on July 11, 2016, upon the issuance of the termination notice; however, it is a settled principle of consumer jurisprudence that the failure to deliver possession of a booked flat, coupled with the failure to obtain a valid Occupation Certificate (OC), constitutes a "continuing cause of action." The Hon'ble Supreme Court and the National Commission (NCDRC) have consistently held that as long as the developer has not fulfilled their contractual obligation to hand over legal possession with the requisite completion certificates, the limitation period does not expire.
25. In this case, the Complainant is a senior citizen and has paid a substantial amount of the total consideration. A builder cannot unilaterally terminate a registered agreement for sale and then seek shelter under the technicality of limitation to avoid their fundamental duty of delivering the property. Furthermore, the act of the Opponents in retaining the Complainant's hard earned money while failing to provide the flat as per the agreed timeline of August 31, 2015, creates a perpetual state of deficiency in service. The cause of action remains alive every single day that the Complainant is deprived of her home.
26. Therefore, we observed that the complaint is filed well within the spirit of the law, as the breach of trust and contract by the developer is on-going. The mere issuance of an illegal termination notice does not trigger the cessation of the cause of action; Since the possession was never legally handed over with an OC, the cause of action is alive. In view of our finding given as to have point No.1 in negative.
Point No.2
27. The Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 have challenged the maintainability of the present complaint, contending that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction. They argue that the agreed consideration was Rs. 20, 50,180/- and 15 that the actual amount paid by the complainant was only Rs. 17,23,997/-, which falls below the threshold for State Commission jurisdiction. However, this Commission finds the Opposite Parties objection to be legally untenable for the following reasons
28. Pursuant to Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission is determined by the "value of the goods or services paid as consideration." The complainant has pleaded and provided prima facie evidence that a total consideration of Rs. 57, 74,177/- was paid to Opposite Party No. 1. For the purpose of determining jurisdiction at the admission stage, the Commission must look at the specific averments made in the complaint and the supporting payment receipts. Given that the paid consideration exceeds Rs. 50,00,000/- but does not exceed Rs. 2,00,00,000/- the matter falls squarely within the pecuniary mandate of this State Commission as per the latest pecuniary limits.
29. The Opposite Parties further contended that a refund after a 25% deduction was issued via cheque, thereby terminating the consumer relationship. We observe that, unilateral refund or a "forced" settlement involving a 25% deduction does not automatically divest a consumer of their right to seek Redressal for Deficiency in Service or Unfair Trade Practices. The objection raised by the Opposite Parties regarding the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction is hereby rejected. This Commission holds that it is fully empowered to entertain and decide the present complaint on its merits. In view of our finding given as to have point No.2 in negative.
Point No.3
30. In this present consumer complaint, the Opponents have vehemently argued that since they have already instituted Special Civil Suit No. 291/2016 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel, seeking the cancellation of the Agreement for Sale, the present Commission is barred from entertaining the complaint under the principle of sub-judice. However, this Commission finds 16 this argument to be a misinterpretation of the settled law. It is well-established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in multiple landmark judgments, that the remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act are additional remedies and are not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. The mere pendency of a civil suit does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of a Consumer Commission, especially when the primary grievance pertains to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices matters which the Consumer Commissions are specifically empowered to adjudicate in a summary and time- bound manner.
31. Furthermore, we observe that the Civil Suit in question was filed by the Opponent/Builder only after they defaulted on the promised possession date of August 2015. A service provider cannot be permitted to use the filing of a civil suit as a tactical shield to stall or escape their liability toward a consumer. The scope of a Civil Suit for "cancellation of a deed" is distinct from the scope of a Consumer Complaint, which focuses on the developer's failure to deliver the flat after receiving substantial consideration. This Commission is not a "Civil Court" in the traditional sense, but a specialized statutory body; therefore, the parallel proceedings do not create a legal bar. To hold otherwise would allow every defaulting builder to circumvent the Consumer Protection Act simply by filing a pre-emptive civil suit, thereby defeating the very object and purpose of the legislation meant to protect vulnerable consumers from the might of powerful developers. In view of our finding given as to have point No.3 in negative.
Point No. 432. Upon a meticulous examination of the records, this Commission observed that the unilateral termination of the registered Agreement for Sale by the Opponents on July 11, 2016, constitutes a gross deficiency in service and a clear instance of unfair trade practice. The facts reveal that the Complainant, a senior citizen, had already performed her primary contractual obligation by paying a 17 substantial sum of Rs. 57,74,177/-, an amount that significantly exceeds the registered agreement value. Despite this, the Opponents failed to honour the possession deadline of August 31, 2015. The subsequent act of the Opponents issuing a demand notice for a relatively minor amount and then abruptly terminating the contract while the building lacked a valid Occupation Certificate (OC) is nothing short of an exploitative tactic. Under the Consumer Protection Act, a builder is legally and ethically bound to complete construction and obtain an OC before demanding final payments or threatening termination. By terminating the agreement after pocketing the Complainant's life savings, the Opponents have attempted to unjustly enrich themselves at the cost of a vulnerable consumer.
33. Furthermore, the Commission finds that the Opponents' conduct in returning only a fraction of the deposited amount while retaining the remainder without delivering the flat is an arbitrary and high-handed act. The issuance of a "C-Summary" by the police in the related criminal matter does not absolve the Opponents of their civil and statutory liabilities under consumer law. The termination was not a bona fide exercise of contractual rights but rather a calculated move to "grab" the property and deprive the Complainant of her rightful ownership after the real estate prices in the Navi Mumbai area had presumably appreciated. Such "deceptive design" and "dark patterns" in real estate transactions, where consumers are coerced under duress and then discarded through illegal cancellations, fall squarely within the definition of unfair trade practices. Therefore, we hold that the Opponents are liable for a fundamental breach of contract, and their actions have caused immense mental agony and financial loss to the Complainant, necessitating the intervention of this Commission to restore justice. In view of our finding given as to have point No.4 in affirmative.
Point No.5
34. In view of our findings as to point no.1 to 3 in negative and point No.4 in Affirmative, it is clear that the opponents has committed deficiency towards the 18 complainant. Therefore, this commission came to the conclusion that complaint is hereby needs to be partly allowed. It is directed to Opponents No. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of Flat No. 701, Mega Atmos, to the Complainant, after accepting the balance consideration as per the agreed terms and execute Agreement for Sale in favour of the Complainant by obtaining Occupation Certificate and Building Completion Certificate within 3 months from this order. In alternate, at the option of the complainant, it is directed to Opponents No. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of any other flat of the same area with similar configuration in the same building or in the same locality after accepting the balance consideration as per the agreed terms and execute Agreement for Sale in favour of the Complainant by obtaining Occupation Certificate and Building Completion Certificate within 3 months from this order. In addition, It is directed to the Opponents No. 1 to 5 are jointly and severally to pay to sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the compensation for the stress, inconvenience, harassment, mental torture & agony suffered by the Complainants; As well as pay the sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the Legal and incidental expenses incurred by the Complainants. Hence, in an answer to point no. 5 we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is directed to Opponents No. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of Flat No. 701, Mega Atmos, to the Complainant, after accepting the balance consideration as per the agreed terms and execute Agreement for Sale in favour of the Complainant by obtaining Occupation Certificate and Building Completion Certificate within 3 months from this order.
3. In alternate, at the option of the complainant, it is directed to Opponents No. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of any other flat of the same area with similar 19 configuration in the same building or in the same locality after accepting the balance consideration as per the agreed terms and execute Agreement for Sale in favour of the Complainant by obtaining Occupation Certificate and Building Completion Certificate within 3 months from this order.
4. In addition, It is directed to the Opponents No. 1 to 5 are jointly and severally to pay to sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the compensation for the stress, inconvenience, harassment, mental torture & agony suffered by the Complainants; As well as pay the sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the Legal and incidental expenses incurred by the Complainants.
5. The copy of the judgment be furnished to the both side free of cost.
[Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi] Presiding Member [Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan] Member NAC/aj