Mumbai Consumer Forum Orders Pune Builder to Compensate Wadala Couple

The Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held the developers of the Floristaa Valley project in Maval, Pune, guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, ordering them to pay compensation to a Wadala-based couple after failing to provide promised amenities for nearly 13 years.

The complaint was filed against the developer and his nine partners by Mohan Prabhakar Tekavde and Swati Mohan Tekavde, both practising advocates residing in Wadala. The couple had purchased a row house named “Lavender-1” in the Floristaa Valley project located at Kunenama, Maval.

According to the complaint, the parties entered into an agreement for sale on February 6, 2010, and possession of the row house was handed over on March 15, 2011. The sale deed was subsequently executed on May 12, 2022. Despite handing over possession, the developers failed to provide basic infrastructure and amenities agreed upon in the contract.

The complainants stated that essential facilities such as water supply, street lights, and internal roads were not provided. Additionally, recreational amenities promised under Schedule II of the agreement—including a landscaped garden, community hall, library and reading room, indoor games area, swimming pool, parking space, and round-the-clock security—were never made available.

The ten opposite parties failed to appear before the commission to contest the complaint and were proceeded against ex parte through an order dated October 1, 2025. The commission noted that the complainants' allegations regarding the missing amenities remained undisputed.

The commission ruled that Schedule II of the agreement for sale formed a binding part of the contract. It held that the failure to provide basic utilities like water, street lighting, and internal roads amounted to gross deficiency, while withholding the promised amenities constituted a breach of contract and an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The commission also held that the developers are obligated to obtain an occupation certificate and provide a copy of the sanctioned plan to the complainants. However, it declined to grant relief concerning the conveyance of land to the housing society, observing that the society was not made a party to the complaint and had not placed any material on record regarding steps taken to enforce its rights.

Under the final order, the developers have been directed to provide all amenities promised under the 2010 agreement within 60 days. They must also jointly and severally pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and loss of amenity enjoyment, along with Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs, within 60 days. If the developers fail to pay within the stipulated timeframe, the amount will attract interest at 9% per annum until realisation.