Mumbai State Commission Holds Lucina Land Development Liable For Neither Refunding Flat Amount Nor Delivering Possession In Indiabulls Park Housing Project

The Maharashtra Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member and Poonam V. Maharshi, Member has held Lucina Land Development Ltd. and its director liable for failure to deliver possession of flat as per agreed terms and conditions or in the alternative, to refund the amount deposited by the complainant. Brief facts: The complainant submitted an application form for booking of residential apartment No. 903 in the housing project- Indiabulls Park by Lucina land Development Ltd. ('builder') at Panvel, Mumbai for a total consideration of Rs. 54,04,300/-. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 5,40,430/- to the builder. As per one of the clauses in the application form, if the builder failed to execute an agreement within 24 months, the builder will pay 6% interest on the amount paid by the complainant. As per the complainant, the builder informed him that due to some internal problems between the promoters, they were unable to execute the agreement and asked the complainant to wait for another 24 months. However, the builder neither executed any agreement nor refunded the amount with interest. Thereafter, the complainant demanded a written letter from the builder on 23.01.2016. The builder the informed the complainant that he has been allotted apartment in 'COSMOS-3C/901' against the complainant's old allotted apartment No. 6B-903. The complainant visited the office of the builder and requested them to allot the same flat which was allotted to him earlier and for which he had paid consideration. However, a letter was received by the complainant on 07.07.2017 forcing him to accept the allotment as per the builder's wish and threatened to cancel the allotment. The complainant thereafter asked for a refund along with interest. Since the builder failed to refund the amount, the complainant filed a complaint against the builder and its director with the Mumbai Consumer Commission praying for appropriate compensation. The builder and its director as collectively referred to as 'Opposite parties'. Submissions of the Opposite Parties: It was submitted that the complainant is not a 'consumer' within the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It was further submitted that the director the builder cannot be made personally liable in exclusion to others without there being any specific allegation against him of unfair trade practice. It was the contention of the director that his name is required to be struck off since he is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. It was also argued that the complainant was provided with all necessary information and clarification related to the housing project and all terms and conditions were entirely read by him. As per the builder, the complainant was forwarded a cause sheet which was to be signed by him to be sent to the builder which he failed to do so. Observations of the commission: On the issue of whether the complainant is a consumer or not, the bench held that since the flat was booked for residential purpose in the housing project, the complainant is a consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The bench rejected the argument of the builder that the complainant has read the terms and conditions of the application form and is therefore hit by doctrine of estoppel. It was held that the terms and conditions of the application form are one-sided and not binding on the complainant. It was further observed that the failure of the opposite parties to refund the amount or deliver possession to the complainant despite receipt of a letter amounted to deficiency in service as there is a huge delay on the builder's part. The bench took note of a copy of Form DIR-12 filed by the director of the builder company as per which he had resigned on 10.03.2020. It was observed that though he resigned, but on the date of the transaction he was one of the directors of the company. Thus, the director was also held to be a necessary party to the complaint. Hence, the complaint was allowed with the following reliefs: Rs. 5,40,430/- @12% interest p.aRs. 50,000 as compensation Rs. 25,000 as litigation costs The builder and the director were jointly and severally directed to pay the above amounts. Case Title: Suresh Kumar T vs Lucina Land Development Ltd. Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 19/583 Date of Decision: 30.06.2025Click Here To Read/Download Order

Mumbai State Commission Holds Lucina Land Development Liable For Neither Refunding Flat Amount Nor Delivering Possession In Indiabulls Park Housing Project

Aakanksha Bajoria

Tags