NIKHIL MEHTA Vs. GARDENVIEW ABODE PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This consumer complaint has been filed by a couple alleging deficiency in service against the OPs Builder cum Developer in having failed to fulfil the promises for delivering a premises that was booked by the complainants in a project titled "Mantri Blossom " launched by the OPs (previously Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd, Bengaluru). The complainants are stated to have paid a sum of Rs.2,13,08,983.00 for their subject apartment Unit B902 in June, 2016.

(2.) Admittedly, the complainants filed a complaint before the Karnataka RERA in December, 2023. According to the complainant unlawful demands were raised in 2025 and there is a continuing deficiency of the compliance of the RERA orders as well as other deficiencies as well. The complainant alleges that this is not a complaint for re-litigating the RERA proceedings which was only concerned with a statutory refund under Sec. 18 of the RERA Act. It is urged that the present complaint arises from independent and subsequent causes of action as the project has undergone SARFAESI possession on 21/6/2024 and the OPs have also raised unlawful demands in September, 2025 with a continued non-compliance of the RERA order. Consequently, these events have been pleaded to urge that this is a continuing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and therefore the present complaint is maintainable, and that the Doctrine of Election will have no application to the present proceedings.

(3.) The principal prayer made in the present complaint is for a refund of Rs.2,13,08,983.00 paid by the complainant with 21% interest thereon and also compensation as well as other heads of exemplary damages that have been detailed in paragraph 9 of the complaint. A consolidated relief table has been extracted in paragraph 9D. Learned counsel has also relied on the order passed by this Commission in the case of Nikhil Kumar Garg vs. Garden View Abode, CC No. 344 of 2020 claiming a similar relief where delay compensation was also awarded.