Mumbai, June 16: The Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed a consumer complaint filed by a retired Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) against the Maharashtra Police Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd. and its founder, holding that the complainant failed to establish any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
Retired ACP Sought Refund, Compensation Over Delayed Housing Project
The complaint was filed by Suresh Lingaji Parab (63), a resident of Chembur and a retired ACP, against Datta Choudhari, a retired Special Inspector General of Police, and the Maharashtra Police Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd.
According to the complaint, the federation had floated a housing scheme in 1995 for police personnel and government employees. Parab enrolled as a member and later opted for a 2-BHK flat measuring about 830 sq ft in the proposed Malvani housing project in Malad (West) for a consideration of Rs 7.71 lakh. He paid Rs 2.24 lakh towards the flat over time.
Parab alleged that while the federation had represented that the project would be completed within three years, the proposed Phase-II building consisting of 2-BHK flats was never constructed even after more than two decades. Claiming that only smaller residential units were built, he sought a refund of his money with interest.
The federation subsequently refunded Rs 2.89 lakh, which included the principal amount and interest. However, Parab contended that the refund was inadequate and amounted to an unfair trade practice.
He sought a declaration that the opponents were guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, along with a refund of Rs 8.74 lakh, interest at 24 per cent per annum, compensation of Rs 3 crore for mental harassment and agony, and litigation costs of Rs 10 lakh.
Commission Finds No Deficiency In Service
The federation opposed the complaint, arguing that Parab had voluntarily sought withdrawal from the scheme in September 2020 and had accepted the refund issued in November 2021 as a full and final settlement.
It further contended that delays in the project were caused by factors beyond its control, including changes in government policies, court proceedings, statutory approvals and administrative constraints.
The Commission, in its order, maintained: “The complainant has failed to establish by cogent evidence that the refund was contrary to the governing terms of the scheme or that the opponents indulged in any unfair trade practice. Mere dissatisfaction with the quantum of interest does not by itself establish deficiency in service when the refund has been made in accordance with the policy adopted by the federation and already communicated to all the members including the complainant.”
Also Watch:
Delay Attributed To Litigation And Administrative Factors
Further, while speaking about the delayed possession, the Commission was convinced by the opponents’ reply. The Commission maintained: “Delay complained of in completing the said project appears to have been substantially attributable to litigation, governmental interventions, changes in redevelopment requirements and administrative processes. Such factors were beyond the direct control of the opponents. The material on record further shows that the opponents communicated developments to the members from time to time and adopted resolutions concerning refund and interest policies. There is no convincing evidence demonstrating that the opponents deliberately withheld information or acted in a fraudulent or deceptive manner,” reads the order copy.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
