DINESH JAIN Vs. SHUBH ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Sec. 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and, seeking possession of the Flat or in alternative, refund of the deposited amount along with ancillary reliefs.

(2.) The factual background, in brief, is that in July 2010, Mr. Sampat Raj Chaplot introduced the Complainant No. 1 to the Opposite Parties, presenting them as emerging builders with an excellent upcoming residential project called "Astoria-I" in Borivali, Mumbai. He recommended purchasing a spacious Flat in this project, located at Jai Maharashtra Nagar, opposite Tata Power Centre, Borivali (East), Mumbai-400066. After several discussions, the Complainants agreed to purchase Flat No. 2504 on the 25th floor, measuring about 1766 sq. ft., for a total consideration of Rs.1,05,96,000.00. The Opposite Parties required an Ernest amount of Rs.30,00,000.00 for the Flat's allotment. Trusting these representations, the Complainants paid the amount. On 23/2/2011, the Opposite Parties issued an Allotment Letter cum Receipt, confirming the purchase and receipt of the Ernest money. The letter, signed by Opposite Party No. 2, assured that construction would begin within three months and stipulated a 21% p.a. interest on delayed commencement beyond this period. Despite considerable time passing, the Opposite Parties failed to start the construction. The Complainants made numerous follow-ups through phone calls and personal visits, but the Opposite Parties consistently offered vague excuses, citing financial issues and departmental problems with authorities like MCGM and MHADA. In a letter dtd. 28/4/2015, signed by Opposite Party No. 3, the Opposite Parties reiterated these excuses but assured the Complainants that their money was safe and they would be informed of the construction schedule within three months. Due to the repeated failures of the Opposite Parties to honor their commitments, the Complainants decided to pursue legal action. On 18/2/2017, through their Advocates, the Complainants issued a Legal Notice to the Opposite Parties, demanding Rs.93,75,291.00 due by 17/2/2017. The notice was sent to the last known addresses of the Opposite Parties but was returned unserved. These addresses were provided by the Opposite Parties. In a final attempt to resolve the issue, the Complainants' Advocate published a public Notice in two newspapers, "Free Press Journal" and "Lokshakti," on 17/3/2017. Despite this, the Opposite Parties did not respond or comply with the Notice. The Opposite Parties' failure to deliver the Flat led the Complainants to file this Consumer Complaint, asserting that the cause of action is continuous and thus within the limitation period.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid facts, the Complainants have prayed as following -