The Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Shree Sukhakarta Developers Pvt Ltd, a Matunga-based real estate firm, guilty of providing deficient and faulty services towards one of its Parel based consumers. The commission has directed the developer to refund ₹13,12,792 paid by a consumer for stamp duty and registration charges. The commission also ordered the firm to pay 10% interest on the amount from 2019 and ₹1 lakh for causing mental agony to the complainant along with Rs 50,000 towards the litigation charges.
The complaint was filed by siblings Rupali and Chetan Chavan, who booked a flat in Ruparel Nova, Bhoiwada, in March 2019. The flat, priced at ₹1,26,23,000, was offered under a subvention scheme. Under this scheme, the complainants were required to pay 10% upfront, with 80% arranged as a loan by the developer through its partner bank. The developer had assured the complainants that it would pay the interest on the loan during the construction phase until possession was handed over.
The case dates back to 2019, when the complainants had paid ₹11,49,667 as the initial amount along with applicable taxes, which came up to Rs 13,12,792. It was towards the payment of stamp duty and registration charges, but the developer failed to provide a draft agreement for review. Delays in approvals for the registration of agreements and the scrapping of the subvention scheme due to the developer’s inability to provide requisite documentation had forced the complainants to cancel the booking in October 2019.
Despite repeated requests, the developer refused to refund the amount, claiming it was non-refundable. Aggrieved by the developer’s actions, the complainants filed a case with the consumer commission, citing unfair trade practices and deficiency in services.
The developer in its defence had admitted to the subvention scheme but argued that the complainants had failed to make timely payments, resulting in financial losses. It also claimed that the complainants delayed payments for over 609 days, incurring interest. The developer further contended that the cancellation was illegal and sought compensation for losses amounting to ₹36,57,982.
The commission after going through the arguments placed on record, maintained that the developer accepted partial payment but failed to execute the agreement which had violated the provisions of RERA and MOFA. Further it was found by the commission that the developer had misrepresented the subvention scheme and lured the complainants into booking the flat without possessing necessary approvals.
The commission also held that the demand for stamp duty and registration charges by the developer was made before approvals were secured, and subsequent delays led to the cancellation of the subvention scheme. Also the developer’s refusal to refund the amount and its claim of forfeiture was deemed untenable and amounted to unfair trade practices.
