Manoj Kumar Mauni & Anr Vs M/s Lodha Developers Ltd

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

785 paragraphs · 5,394 words

The present batch of Consumer Complaints (CCs) have been filed by the Complainants against Opposite Party (OP) as detailed above, inter alia praying for directions to the OP to:-

i. Provide apartment having carpet area as agreed between the parties in Lodha DIORO at New Cuffe Parade alongwith all amenities, facilities and infrastructure or in the alternate, refund an amount equal to cost paid for shortfall in carpet area along with interest as also the differential stamp duty.

ii. Pay compensation for delay in delivering the possession of flat alongwith 18% interest.

iii. Provide each and every amenities, facilities as promised.

iv. Compensation for opportunity loss caused to the complainant due to acts of omission/commission on the part of OP.

v. Compensation for undue hardship, injury and agony, both physical and mental, caused to the complainant.

vi. Pay cost of litigation.

In CC 12 of 2019 the main prayer is for directions to OP to (i) take back the allotted flat and refund the amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. or (ii) hand over a new flat having the agreed carpet area with similar view as booked with refund of amount for shortfall in carpet area along with interest as alternate prayer.

Since the facts and question of law involved and the reliefs prayed for in these complaints are similar/identical and against the same Opposite Party except for minor variations in the dates, events and flat numbers etc., which are summarized in the Table at Annexure-A, these complaints are being disposed off by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 11 of 2019 is treated as the lead case and facts enumerated herein under are taken from CC/11/2019.

Original complaint was filed on 03.01.2019 against two OPs, viz Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Lodha Developers Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2). Complaint was admitted on 09.01.2019 only against OP-1 subject to complainant filing an amended memo of parties impleading OP-1 as the sole OP, which was filed on 14.01.2019. Subsequently, on 23.05.2019, another amended memo of parties was filed with Lodha Developers Ltd. (Formerly Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. & Lodha Developers Pvt. Ltd.) as the OP. Again on 08.02.2021, another amended memo of parties was filed with Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Formerly Lodha Developers Ltd., Lodha Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Lodha Crown Buildmart Ltd.) as the OP. In the application dated 08.02.2021, seeking permission to file amended memo of parties, it is stated that when agreement to sell was entered into between the parties, the name of OP was Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, the name of OP went through several changes and presently the name of OP is Macrotech Developers. The name of M/s Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. has been first changed to M/s Lodha Bellisimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., again by order dated 04.01.2018 passed by NCLT Mumbai, M/s Lodha Bellisimo Pvt. Ltd. merged with M/s Lodha Developers Pvt. Ltd., thereafter, Lodha Developers Pvt. Ltd. became a public company and name was changed to Lodha Developers Ltd., again the name Lodha Developers Ltd. too has been changed and presently it is M/s Macrotech Developers Ltd.

Notice was issued to the OP. Parties filed Written Statement/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence by way of an Affidavit and Written Arguments/Synopsis etc. as per details given in the Table at Annexure-A. The details of the flats allotted to the Complainant (s)/other relevant details, based on pleadings of the parties and other records of the case are also given in the Table at Annexure-A.

Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the pleadings of the parties and other case records are that the complainants booked an apartment in “Lodha Dioro’ (New Cuffe Parade) project of OP and was allotted a 3BHK Flat No. A-502, 5th Floor, measuring carpet area of 1238 sq.ft. at a total consideration of Rs.2,68,33,680/- vide allotment letter dated 11.11.2011. An Agreement to Sell was executed on 12.12.2011. Complainants paid a total amount of Rs.2,70,00,834/-. Possession of the said flat was taken by the complainants on 02.11.2018.

It is averred/stated in the Complaint that: -

i. The agreement in standard printed form structured unilaterally by the OP, has totally unfair and unjust clauses.

ii. Although the possession date was committed to be 31.12.2015 at the time of booking, it was unilaterally extended to 31.12.2016 as per agreement.

iii. Time was made as essence of the agreement only regarding instalment payments by the complainants.

iv. OP restricted its liability to a throwaway amount of Rs.5.00 lakh, should there be any defect in workmanship of the unit or material used thereon.

v. As regards carpet area, OP claimed unilateral right to amend/modify building plans etc. but committed that there shall not be any reduction in carpet area of the unit.

The OP-1 in their written statement/reply stated that: -

i. The Complainant has impleaded Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. as the Opposite Party herein. However, the entity bearing name, "Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd." does not exist anymore. On 06.04.2017, the name of Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. was changed to "Bellisimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd." Thereafter, the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, vide order and judgment dated 04.01.2018 sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation of Bellisimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. with "Lodha Developers Private Limited". Thereafter, on 14.03.2018, Lodha Developers Private Limited became a public company and changed its name to "Lodha Developers Limited". "Further, the name of "Lodha Developers Ltd." is under process for change to "Macrotech Developers Ltd." Therefore, the instant written version is being filed on behalf of Macrotech Developers Limited.

ii. Complainant has booked the Flat with Opposite Party only as an added investment and for commercial purpose and therefore cannot be called a bonafide purchaser for residential need or within the ambit of the definition of "Consumer" under the provisions of section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

iii. Complainant's allegations regarding carpet area are completely untenable. The Opposite Party is in compliance of the terms of the Agreement to Sell.

iv. A Part Occupancy Certificate for its New Cuff Parade project was received on 08.06.2017 along with the others and subsequently started the handover process in a phased manner. The Occupancy Certificate dated 08.06.2017 was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 2639/2018 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which was eventually disposed vide judgment and order dated 16.10.2018. The Hon'ble High Court did not see any substance in the petitioner's contention that the MMRDA in any manner was prohibited from granting part Occupancy certificate and the issuance of part occupancy certificate was illegal.

v. As per the provisions of the Agreement to Sell, the Opposite Party is entitled to further extension of time even after the expiry of grace period (i.e. 31.12.2017) on account of delay in receipt of approvals or any other event beyond the control of Opposite Party. Any delay which was caused was because even after multiple interactions and requests the Civil Aviation authorities had not released the clearances required for the construction of the higher floors, even though the towers having necessary floor plan approvals and MMRDA approvals in place. This delay had constrained the Opposite Party's pace of construction. However, the Opposite Party remained committed to its objective of delivering the residences within the grace period of Agreement with the Complainant.

Complainant in his rejoinder denies that possession of flat was offered on 03.11.2017 and as such was handed over within time. OP offered the possession of apartment for fit outs on 24.09.2018 after a period of almost three years from the stipulated date i.e. 31.12.2015 by demanding Rs.25,48,565/-. Admittedly, even going by the statement of the Opposite Party, which although has been denied by the Complainant, the possession for fit out was offered on 03.11.2017 almost one year after the expiry of the grace period. In actuality the possession was offered on 24.09.2018, that too of deficient Apartment, after a delay of almost three years.

10.

Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, based on their Complaint/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

11.

During the oral arguments, complainants pressed for and argued mainly for two issues viz (i) shortfall in carpet area and (ii) delay in possession. These are briefly discussed as follows:-

i. Shortfall in carpet area

Complainants argued that instead of carpet area of 1238 sq.ft as per allotment letter/agreement, OP had handed over the flat with carpet area of only 742.20 sq.ft., the shortfall being as huge as 40% i.e. 495.80 sq.ft. (contentions of complainants regarding carpet area as per Agreement to Sell, carpet area actually given and shortfall in carpet area in all the consumer complaints covered under this order are summed up in Table at Annexure-B).The shortfall in the carpet area was indicated by the Architect engaged by the complainants in his report dated 17.12.2018.The OP relied on the definition of carpet area given in clause 1(H) of the agreement, which is violative of the carpet area statutorily defined in DCR 1991.The definitionof carpet area has been reduced to redundancy by the circular dated 14.06.2017 by MahaRERA by mandating the carpet area to be defined in terms of Section 2(k) of Real Estate and Development Act 2016.

OP on the other hand contended that complainant’s case regarding shortage of carpet area is built on the carpet area stated in floor plan submitted by OP to MMRDA as well as reports of architect(s) engaged by complainants to measure the flat.The calculations done by architects engaged by the complainants to reach the conclusion that carpet area is deficit is de hors the terms of Agreement to Sell.Carpet area is defined in the agreement to sell in clause 1.9 as follows:-

“Carpet Area” shall mean the carpet area of the Unit including all passages, decks, balconies, service slabs, cupboards, niches and/or any other area which the Purchaser is exclusively entitled to use.Such carpet area is calculated on bare shell basis, prior to application of any finishes/finishing material and is subject to tolerance of +/-2% on account of structural, design and construction variances.”

Therefore, as per the agreement, carpet area includes the decks, balconies, service slabs, elevation treatment and/or any other area which the purchaser is exclusively entitled to. The Architect(s) engaged by the complainants have reached their conclusions ignoring the definition in the agreement.OP further contended that definition of carpet area was identical in the application, which was executed by the complainants as far back as in 2013, four years prior to execution of the Agreement.In the brochure, the dimensions of each and every rooms/area in the flat has been clearly mentioned.The floor plan of the unit annexed to the Agreement also provides the shape and structure of the flat.The complainants cannot therefore plead ignorance with regard to the dimensions of the flat.

OP further argued that prior to coming into force of RERA Act 2016, the sale of residential and commercial premises in Maharashtra was governed by provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Apartment Act (MOFA), which in the explanation to Section 3 provides that Carpet area includes the area of a balcony.Therefore, prior to the commencement of RERA, MOFA permitted OP to define carpet area in the manner set out in the Agreement.Indeed Regulation 2(15) of Development Control Regulations (DCR) (DCR91) defines carpet area as-

“….. net usable floor area within a building excluding that covered by the walls or any other areas specifically exempted from floor space index computation in these Regulations...”.

However, DCR91 is a delegated legislation under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (MMCA 1888), but MOFA is special regulation which deals specifically with the sale of flats and apartments in Maharashtra.OP also got the flat measured by an Architect engaged by it and the measurement of his report is within the permissible limit. The Complainants being directors in various companies, are not helpless or unsuspecting complainants, they are well aware how the real estate transactions function, and it cannot be argued that they had unequal bargaining power. OP contended that complainants cannot at this belated stage claim that they were unaware of the definition of carpet area, it is settled law that provision of a contract will prevail unless the same are illegal.The complainants did not protest or raise any objection at the time of executing application form and Agreement, which has been signed by complainants without any coercion and/or undue influence.The complainants have been vacillating with the respect to the carpet area, have set up multiple carpet area in their pleadings.The complainant’s interpretation and reliance on MMRDA plan is incorrect, the measurements in the MMRDA floor plan are for the purpose of car parking only, the MMRDA is concerned with ensuring that a developer does not provide inadequate car parking spaces in relation to number of residents in a tower, what was promised in the Agreement is exactly what has been provided to the complainants.

Complainants argued that the definition of carpet area in the Agreement is in violation of Regulation 2(3) (15) of DCR, 1991.In the event of conflict between law, which is Regulation 2(3)(15) in the present case, and the contractual term, the former shall prevail rendering void the latter.Exemption granted to OP from the applicability of DCR Wadala Notified Area (WNA) does not render DCR 1991 inapplicable for the purpose of carpet area.OP cannot be free from rigours of law by being located in WNA.In the present case, the applicable law is DCR 1991 and not MOFA.Even if it assumed that MOFA is applicable, the OP may justify only the inclusion of balcony in carpet area, that too, after it has advertised balcony as includable in carpet area in terms of Section 3(2)(m) of MOFA; but OP has never shown balcony as part of carpet area in its advertisement.Areas such as balcony, elevation treatment, service decks, UPS room and special elevation projection are non-habitable.Since all these FSI exempted areas, having floor level- 450mm, are not even shown in line area diagram of MMRDA approved plan, therefore these cannot be computed as carpet area.The carpet area defined by OP is illegal and an outcome of unilaterally structured agreement to sell imposed by OP on the complainants in an unequal bargain.

We have carefully gone through the rival contentions raised by both parties, provisions of the DCR 1991, MOFA, Application and Agreement to Sell and all related documents and facts.Regulation 2 of DCR for WADALA, which relates to applicability to the Development Regulations has specifically exempted OP from its applicability.Relevant Regulation is reproduced as below:-

“2. Applicability to the Development Permission

These Regulations will apply to all the proposed development of lands on which permission is being granted by MMRDA, excluding the land allotted to Mathadi Kamgar CHS and Lodha Crown building pvt. Ltd. in the Wadala Notified Area.”

Agreement to Sell signed by the parties has clearly defined the carpet area in clause 1.9 and the same is binding on both the sides.If we go by the definition of carpet area as defined in the agreement, there is no shortfall in the carpet area actually provided by the OP to complainants, a fact not disputed by the complainants.Moreover, the definition of carpet area given in agreement was preceded by same definition in the application form.Hence, the complainants, with their full knowledge and consent, by signing the agreement, are deemed to have agreed to the definition of carpet area given therein and cannot now contend that it is vialative of DCR 1991 or MMRDA approved plans. Hence, complainants are not entitled to any relief on this prayer.

(ii) Delay compensation

Complainants allege that there was an inordinate delay on the part of OP in handing over the possession from the date committed in the Agreement and have prayed for delay compensation for about 35 months from December 2015 to November 2018.It is alleged that although the possession date was committed to be 31.12.2015 at the time of booking, it was unilaterally extended to 31.12.2016 in the Agreement.On 24.09.2018, after a delay of three years, OP demanded Rs.26,48,568/- for key handover.

OP on the other hand argued that the flat was allotted to complainants on 11.11.2011 and agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 12.12.2011.The date of possession (for fit-outs), as per agreement was 31.07.2017. When an offer of possession (for fit outs) is made, there is no Occupation Certificate (OC) of the flat.The OP is obligated to obtain and make common areas and amenities within one year of date of possession (for fit outs).Therefore, the OP had time till 31.07.2018 to do so.However, complete possession of flat with OC was offered to complainants on 03.11.2017, much prior to the end of grace period of 31.07.2018.Therefore, the complainant took possession on 02.11.2018.

(In CC/12/2019 OP admits that in the application form the date of offer of possession for fit outs was 30.06.2016 and in the Agreement to sell it was stated to be 31.07.2017.However, agreement was executed on 14.06.2017 i.e. after the date of possession for fit outs mentioned in the application form had already passed.In spite of being well aware of the same, the complainants still chose to go ahead and execute the agreement where the date of fit out possession was stated in writing to be 31.07.2017.In case they were aggrieved by inability of OP to hand over possession for fit outs by 30.06.2016, they could have chosen not to execute the agreement.We tend to agree with the contention of OP in this regard).

We have gone through the provisions of Agreement with regard to relevant clauses, which are reproduced below:-

"11.1. Subject to the Purchaser not being in breach of any of the terms hereof and the Purchaser having paid all the dues and amounts hereunder including the Total Consideration, the Builder/Developer shall endeavor to provide the Unit for fit outs to the Purchaser on or before the Fit out Date as set out in Annexure -2 hereto. The Builder/Developer shall endeavor to complete the construction of the Building, make available the key Common Areas and Amenities and obtain the occupation certificate in respect of the Building within a period of One year from the Fit out Date as set out in Annexure-2 hereto.”

“11.2 –The Builder/Developer shall be entitled to a grace period of One (1) year beyond the aforesaid dates mentioned in clause 11.1 above respectively".

On going through the above, we find that the committed date of offering possession for fit outs is 31.12.2015 and committed date of possession, with grace period is 31.12.2017. In this case, offer of possession for fit outs was made on 03.11.2017 i.e. with a delay of 1 year 11 months, and actual possession was given on 02.11.2018 i.e. with a delay of 11 months from the committed date with grace period under clause 11.2 of Agreement to Sell (ATS). (The relevant details of complainants in cases covered under this order are summarised in the Table at Annexure-C). The objective of fit out possession is to enable the complainants to complete various works/fittings/other actions etc., which are not covered under ATS and are not the responsibility of the OP, while the OP utilises this time to obtain OC of the building, and make available key common areas and amenities, as stated in clause 11.2 of ATS.Hence, any delay in offering possession even for fit outs, as per committed date given in ATS, adversely affects the rights of the complainants and amounts to deficiency in service, making OP liable to compensate complainant for the same.However, considering that OP had one year time to obtain OC from the committed date of possession for fit outs and actual possession can be offered by OP/taken by complainants only when OC is obtained and OP had a grace period of one year (1½ year in CC/12/2019 and 2193/2019) under Clause 11.2, we are of the opinion the delay upto one year i.e. the grace period (1½ year in CC/12/2019 and 2193/2019) in offer of possession for fit outs from the committed date given in Annexure-2 of ATS can be condoned. Hence, only in cases where such delay is more than one year/1½ year, as the case may be, the complainants will be entitled to delay compensation interest @6% on the total amount paid for the period exceeding 1 year/1½ year, as given in column 10 of Table at Annexure-C.As regards delay in actual possession from the committed date with grace period as given in clause 11.2 of the agreement, complainants are entitled to delay compensation for the period of delay as given in column 11 of Table at Annexure-C.In case the two periods of delays described above overlap in any case, it shall be counted once only.

12.

The contention that complainant(s) is/are not a consumer(s) as he/they has/have purchased the unit for commercial purpose is rejected as no such evidence has been adduced by the OP in this regard. It has been observed by this Commission in various cases (Kavita Ahuja Vs Shipra Estates Ltd, CC 137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, Santosh Johri Vs M/s Unitech Ltd, CC 429 of 2014 and connected Cases, decided on 08.06.2015, Aloke Anand Vs M/s Ireo Grace Pvt Ltd & Others, CC no 1277 of 2017 decided on 01.11.2021) that purchase of a house can only be for a commercial purpose if the purchaser is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses or plots on a regular basis, solely with a view to make profit by way of sale of such houses, if the house is purchased purely as an investment and the purchaser is not undertaking the trading of houses on regular basis, then it would be difficult to say that he had purchased it for commercial purpose.

13.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, the Consumer Complaint is allowed/disposed off with the following directions/reliefs: -

i. The OP shall pay delay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 6% per annum on the amount paid by the complainants from the committed date of possession for fit outs till the actual date of offer of possession for fit outs as given in Column 10 of Table at Annexure-C.

ii. Further, the OP shall pay delay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 6% per annum on the amount paid by the complainants from the committed date of possession with grace period till the actual date of possession as given in Column 11 of Table at Annexure-C.

iii. Parties to bear their respective litigation.

iv. The payment in terms of this order shall be paid within three months from today.

14.

In CC/664/2019 and CC/2193/2019, where M/s Lodha Developers have been shown as OP, the direction under this order shall be applicable to M/s Macrotech Developers Ltd., which is the successor company to M/s Lodha Develpors Ltd.

15 . The pending IAs, in any of the Consumer Complaints, if any, also stand disposed off.

Annexure-A

Details of the Unit and other related details

Sr No

Particulars

Case No/ Complainant

CC/11/2019

Durgesh Singh

CC//12/2019

Paresh Prataprai Mehta & Anr.

CC/630/2019

Pandurang Bhavanishankar Pandit & Anr.

Project Name/Location etc.

Lodha DIORE, New Cuffe Parade, Mumbai

Lodha EVOQ, New Cuffe Parade, Mumbai

Lodha ELISIUM, New Cuffe Parade, Mumbai

Apartment no.

A-0502

B-3501

A-1302

Size (Built up/Covered/Super Area)

1238 sq.ft.

2952 sq.ft.

1086 sq.ft.

Date of application

11.10.2011

08.04.2013

27.08.2011

Date of allotment

11.11.2011

17.05.2013

01.10.2011

Date of signing Agreement to Sell

12.12.2011

14.06.2017

11.11.2011

Committed date of possession as per Agreement (with Grace period, if any)

31.12.2017

31.01.2020

31.12.2017

D/o Obtaining OC/Part OC by the OP

08.06.2017

D/o Offering Possession for fit outs

03.11.2017 (as per OP)

24.09.2018 (as per complainant)

11.08.2017

02.11.2017

Actual D/o Physical Possession

02.11.2018

05.05.2018

16.05.2018

Total Consideration as per agreement

Rs.2,68,33,680/-

Rs.12,30,07,880/-

Rs.1,96,77,276/-

D/o Filing CC in NCDRC

03.01.2019

16.04.2019

D/o Issue of Notice to OP(s)

09.01.2019

25.04.2019

D/o Filing Reply/Written Statement by OP

10.06.2019

06.06.2019

26.07.2019

D/o filing Rejoinder by the Complainant(s)

05.09.2019

25.07.2019

06.03.2020

D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the Complainant(s)

14.10.2019

23.09.2019

13.04.2021

D/o filing Affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by Complainant(s)

07.11.2019

D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the OP

10.11.2020

07.10.2021

D/o filing Affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by OP

10.11.2020

D/o filing Written Synopsis by the Complainant(s)

23.08.2022

21.12.2020

11.11.2022

D/o filing Written Synopsis by the OP

Not filed

13.08.2021

Not filed

Annexure-A

Details of the Unit and other related details

Sr No

Particulars

Case No/ Complainant

CC/631/2019

Maya Ajwani & Ors.

CC/663/2019

Ramona Adil Vesuvala

CC/664/2019

Navneet Aggarwal & Anr.

Project Name/Location etc.

Lodha ELISIUM, New Cuffe Parade, Mumbai

Lodha ELISIUM, , New Cuffe Parade, Mumbai

Apartment no.

B-1702

A-2504,

A-3404

Size (Built up/Covered/Super Area)

1256 sq.ft.

1512 sq.ft.

1342 sq.ft.

Date of application

23.08.2011

18.06.2011

04.05.2011

Date of allotment

12.09.2011

12.07.2011

Date of signing Agreement to Sell

26.12.2011

29.09.2011

02.04.2012

Committed date of possession as per Agreement (with Grace period)

31.12.2017

D/o Obtaining OC/part OC by the OP

08.06.2017

D/o Offering Possession for fit outs

04.12.2017 (as per OP)

04.01.2018 (as per complainants)

27.12.2017

05.01.2018

Actual D/o Physical Possession

17.01.2018

07.06.2018

25.03.2018

D/o Signing Conveyance deed/sublease deed

Total Consideration as per agreement

Rs.2,70,41,040/-

Rs.3,28,75,227/-

Rs.2,92,92,678/-

D/o Filing CC in NCDRC

16.04.2019

22.04.2019

D/o Issue of Notice to OP

25.04.2019

26.04.2019

D/o Filing Reply/Written Statement by OP

26.07.2019

09.07.2019

15.07.2019

D/o filing Rejoinder by the Complainant(s)

28.02.2020

20.02.2020

D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the Complainant(s)

13.04.2021

13.04.20921

15.04.2021

D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the OP

07.10.2021

20.10.2022

D/o filing Written Synopsis by the Complainant(s)

11.11.2022

D/o filing Written Synopsis by the OP

Annexure-A

Details of the Unit and other related details

Sr No

Particulars

Case No/ Complainant

CC/665/2019

Akhil Bankatlal Tody & Ors.

CC/666/2019

Mr. Bhavin Mehta & Anr.

CC/854/2019

Mulk Raj Anand & Anr.

Project Name/Location etc.

Lodha EVOQ, New Cuffe Parade, Mumbai

Lodha ELISIUM, New Cuffe Parade, Mumbai

Apartment no.

B-303

B-2501

B-1302

Size (Built up/Covered/Super Area)

1642 sq.ft.

2952 sq.ft.

1086 sq.ft.

Date of application

08.04.2013

06.04.2013

14.01.2012

Date of allotment

09.05.2013

26.06.2013

17.02.2012

Date of signing Agreement to Sell

30.05.2017

25.10.2013

06.08.2012

Committed date of possession as per Agreement (with Grace period)

31.01.2020

30.06.2018

31.12.2017

D/o Obtaining OC/part OC by the OP

08.06.2017

D/o Offering Possession

15.11.2017

21.12.2017

06.12.2017

Actual D/o Physical Possession

04.02.2018

21.12.2017

04.11.2018

Total Consideration as per agreement

Rs.6,10,68,356/-

Rs.11,80,11,800/-

Rs.2,66,66,820/-

D/o Filing CC in NCDRC

22.04.2019

23.05.2019

D/o Issue of Notice to OP

26.04.2019

29.05.2019

D/o Filing Reply/Written Statement by OP

09.07.2019

11.07.2019

01.08.2019

D/o filing Rejoinder by the Complainant(s)

28.02.2020

24.08.2021

D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the Complainant(s)

28.07.2021

26.08.2021

11.11.2022

D/o filing Affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by Complainant(s)

D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the OP

11.10.2022

Not filed

D/o filing Affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by OP

D/o filing Written Synopsis by the Complainant(s)

11.11.2022

18.11.2022

D/o filing Written Synopsis by the OP

Annexure-A

Details of the Unit and other related details

Sr No

Particulars

Case No/ Complainant

CC/1154/2019

Manoj Kumar Mauni & Anr.

CC/1155/2019

Sumita Amit Singh & Anr.

CC/1272/2019

Meena Bharat Mehta & Anr.

CC/2193/2019

Udit Prakash

Project Name/Location etc.

Lodha ELISIUM, New Cuffe Parade, Mumbai

Lodha DIORO, New Cuffe Parade, Mumbai

Apartment no.

B-1804

B-2103

A-3901

B-2003

Size (Built up/ Covered/Super Area)

1330 sq.ft.

925 sq.ft.

935 sq.ft.

925 sq.ft.

Date of application

29.04.2012

28.04.2011

03.10.2012

08.08.2013

Date of allotment

12.06.2012

12.07.2011

26.09.2011 (supple.)

31.10.2012

Date of signing Agreement to Sell

01.08.2012

04.11.2011

01.11.2012

28.10.2013

Committed date of possession as per Agreement (with Grace period)

31.12.2017

D/o Obtaining OC/Part by the OP

08.06.2017

D/o Offering Possession

04.12.2017

30.12.2017

22.02.2018

10.11.2017

Actual D/o Physical Possession

24.12.2017

04.11.2018

31.03.2018

23.02.2018

Total Consideration as per agreement

Rs.3,62,41,920/-

Rs.2,66,66,820/-

Rs.2,68,00,740/-

Rs.2,89,96,866/-

D/o Filing CC in NCDRC

02.07.2019

15.07.2019

08.11.2019

D/o Issue of Notice to OP(s)

05.07.2019

09.07.2019

18.07.2019

14.11.2019

D/o Filing Reply/Written Statement by OP

04.10.2019

27.09.2019

24.12.2019

D/o filing Rejoinder by the Complainant(s)

28.12.2021

20.03.2020

31.08.2020

D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the Complainant(s)

11.11.2022

29.07.2021

28.07.2021

08.10.2021

D/o filing Affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by OP

D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the OP

11.01.2023

11.10.2022

01.11.2022

D/o filing Written Synopsis by the Complainant(s)

18.11.2022

11.11.2022

D/o filing Written Synopsis by the OP

Carpet Area as per Agreement to Sell (ATS), and carpet area as claimed by complainant

Sr. No.

CC No.

Carpet Area as per ATS/Allotment letter

(sq. ft.)

Carpet area as claimed by complainant

(sq.ft.)

Shortfall in carpet area as claimed by complainant (sq.ft.)

Remarks

CC/11/2019

1238

742.2

495.8

CC/12/2019

2952

(a) 1974.47 (b) 2205.48

(a) 977.53 (b) 746.52

(a) As per RTI of Sept. 2018 (b) as per RTI of Oct. 2020

CC/630/2019

1086

837

249

CC/631/2019

1256

743.42

512.58

CC/663/2019

1512

965.44

546.56

CC/664/2019

1342

964.64

377.36

CC/665/2019

1642

1258.81

383.19

CC/666/2019

2952

997.53

CC/854/2019

1086

744.98

341.02

CC/1154/2019

1330

962.61

367.39

CC/1155/2019

925

648.33

276.67

CC/1272/2019

935

625.46

309.54

CC/2193/2019

925

732.36

192.64

Sr. No.

CC No.

D/o Agreement to Sell (ATS)

D/o offer of possession for fitouts as per Annexure 2

Committed date for completing construction of building etc. and obtaining OC as per clause 11.1 of ATS

Committed date of possession with the grace period under clause 11.2

of ATS

Actual D/o offer of possession (for fitouts)

Actual D/o physical possession

Delay in months from committed D/o offer of possession for fitouts as per Annexure 2 (column 4) to actual D/o offer of possession for fitout (column 7)

Delay exceeding 1 year (1 ½ in CC/12/2019 & CC/2193/2019) grace period (IN MONTHS) in offer of possession for fit outs

Delay (IN MONTHS) from committed date of possession with grace period (column 6) to date of actual physical possession (column 8)

CC/11/2019

12.12.2011

31.12.2015

31.12.2016

31.12.2017

03.11.2017

02.11.2018

CC/12/2019

14.06.2017

31.07.2017

31.07.2018

31.01.2020

11.08.2017

05.05.2018

CC/630/2019

11.11.2011

31.12.2015

31.12.2016

31.12.2017

02.11.2017

16.05.2018

CC/631/2019

26.12.2011

31.12.2015

31.12.2016

31.12.2017

04.12.2017 (OP) 04.01.2018 (C)

17.01.2018

CC/663/2019

29.09.2011

31.12.2015

31.12.2016

31.12.2017

27.12.2017 (OP) 08.01.2018 (C)

07.06.2018

CC/664/2019

02.04.2012

31.12.2015

31.12.2016

31.12.2017

05.01.2018

25.03.2018

CC/665/2019

30.05.2017

31.07.2017

31.07.2018

31.01.2020

15.11.2017

04.02.2018

CC/666/2019

25.10.2013

30.06.2016

30.06.2017

30.06.2018

21.12.2017

CC/854/2019

06.08.2012

31.12.2015

31.12.2016

31.12.2017

06.12.2017

04.11.2018

CC/1154/2019

01.08.2012

31.12.2015

31.12.2016

31.12.2017

04.12.2017

24.12.2017

CC/1155/2019

04.11.2011

31.12.2015

31.12.2016

31.12.2017

30.12.2017

18.01.2018

CC/1272/2019

01.11.2012

31.12.2015

31.12.2016

31.12.2017

22.02.2018

31.03.2018

CC/2193/2019

28.10.2013

31.12.2015

31.12.2016

NOTE:- While calculating the period in months, number of days below 15 have been ignored and number of days above 15 have been counted as one month.

Manoj Kumar Mauni & Anr vs M/s Lodha Developers Ltd

More clarity. Every judgment.

Judgment