Maharashtra Consumer Commission Adjusts Compensation in Goregaon Real Estate Dispute
The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has partially allowed an appeal filed by a developer in a redevelopment dispute, while upholding key reliefs granted to a Goregaon resident. The resident, Chintamani Shantaram Walawalkar, had complained of a shortfall in the area of his redeveloped flat and delays in receiving possession-related information.
The case was filed in 2012 by Walawalkar, a resident of the Guruseva Cooperative Housing Society in Goregaon East, against the society, its developer Kabra Associates, and project management consultant S.P. Civil Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Walawalkar alleged a deficiency in service during the redevelopment process.
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, had partly allowed the complaint in 2022, finding all three parties guilty of deficiency in service. The District Commission directed Kabra Associates to compensate Walawalkar for a six sq ft shortfall in the area of the redeveloped flat at the rate agreed in the redevelopment agreement. The developer was also ordered to pay agreed rent for an additional eight months and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. However, no specific reliefs were granted against the society and the project management consultant despite the finding of deficiency in service.
Walawalkar originally owned a 445 sq ft flat in the society. Under the redevelopment scheme, he was entitled to an additional 110 sq ft free of cost and had purchased another 165 sq ft from the developer for Rs 6 lakh, taking the promised area of the redeveloped flat to 720 sq ft.
After the redevelopment was completed, Walawalkar alleged that the flat handed over to him was smaller than agreed and that the developer had failed to provide complete information regarding the Occupation Certificate and Completion Certificate. He therefore approached the consumer forum seeking compensation for the alleged area shortfall, rent, and other reliefs.
The developer disputed the allegations, contending that the flat area was in accordance with the agreement when enclosed balcony space was taken into account. It also pointed out that 37 of the society’s 40 members had accepted possession of their redeveloped flats, while the complainant continued to raise objections. To resolve the dispute, an architect was appointed by the consumer forum to measure the flat. The architect found that the flat had a carpet area of 612.82 sq ft and enclosed balcony and wall-thickness areas measuring 104.91 sq ft, resulting in a total area of approximately 717.73 sq ft.
While hearing cross-appeals filed by both the complainant and the developer, the State Commission found that the District Commission had incorrectly assessed the extent of the area shortfall. It held that the actual deficiency was only about 2.25 sq ft and not six sq ft as earlier determined. The Commission nevertheless upheld the finding that the developer had failed to directly inform the complainant about the issuance of the Occupation Certificate and Completion Certificate and, therefore, sustained the direction requiring payment of rent for the delay period.
The State Commission dismissed the complainant’s appeal seeking enhancement of reliefs and partly allowed the developer’s appeal. It modified the District Commission’s order only to the extent of reducing the compensable area shortfall from six sq ft to 2.25 sq ft, while confirming all other directions, including payment of rent and costs.
