NEW DELHI: The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held a developer liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after it collected Rs 25 lakh from a buyer in 1995 for 11 commercial units, never constructed the building, and kept the buyer waiting for over three decades without any surety of possession.The bench comprising Member Poonam Maharshi and Member Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan directed the builder to refund Rs 25 lakh along with Rs 2 lakh as compensation for mental agony and Rs 25,000 as litigation costs.What was the dispute about?In 1995, Amish Anantrai Modi, owner of Modi Trading Corporation, booked 11 commercial units in a project and paid Rs 25 lakh to the builder. He wanted to use the shops to grow his existing business and earn a living through self-employment. The units were never meant for resale or investment.Despite taking the full payment, the builder never started construction and never handed over the possession. According to the complaint, the buyer repeatedly asked about possession but was never given any clear timeline. In 2018, after years of follow-up, the builder gave him a written assurance on stamp paper but did not even mention a date for signing the sale agreement. With no other option left, the buyer moved the consumer commission in 2018 asking either for possession of the units or a full refund with compensation.The builder never showed up before the commission despite being served notice and the matter was decided without hearing their side.What did the commission say?The commission found the builder guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.On whether the buyer qualified as a consumer, the commission found that the units were bought solely to run his own business and not for any investment or resale purpose. “The said units were never intended to be purchased for resale, investment or speculative commercial venture, but solely for carrying on his own business and earning his livelihood through self-employment,” it noted, accepting him as a valid consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.On the builder’s conduct, the commission found that despite taking the full money, the builder had “failed to perform their contractual obligation of registering the agreement and handing over possession of the subject premises within the promised period.”The commission further noted that the building had still not been constructed and there was no certainty about when possession would ever be given.The commission directed the builder to refund Rs 25 lakh with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the dates of respective payments till realisation, pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation for mental agony and harassment, and Rs 25,000 as cost of litigation, all within 45 days of receiving the order.
