Maharashtra Consumer Commission Orders Lucina Land Development To Refund Buyer With Interest For Failure To Deliver Flat In Indiabulls Park Project
Pranav B Prem
The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, comprising Presiding Member Mukesh V. Sharma and Member Poonam V. Maharshi, has held Lucina Land Development Ltd. and its director jointly liable for deficiency in service after failing to either deliver possession of a booked flat in the Indiabulls Park housing project at Panvel or refund the amount paid by the complainant.
The complaint was filed by Suresh Kumar, who had booked Apartment No. 903 in Sector 6B of the Indiabulls Park project (formerly known as Indiabulls Greens) for a consideration of ₹54,04,300. He paid ₹5,40,430 as booking amount in 2011. As per the application form, if the builder failed to execute the agreement within 24 months, it was liable to pay 6% interest on the deposit.
However, in 2013, the builder informed the complainant that due to internal disputes among promoters, the agreement could not be executed and requested him to wait for another 24 months. Despite this assurance, no agreement was executed nor was the amount refunded. In January 2016, when the complainant sought clarification, he was informed that his original allotment (Flat 6B-903) was substituted with Apartment Cosmos-3C/901. The complainant objected and demanded the originally allotted flat, but in July 2017, the builder threatened cancellation unless he accepted the new allotment. Left with no option, the complainant demanded a refund along with interest, which was not honored, prompting him to file a consumer complaint.
Builder’s Defence
Lucina Land Development and its director contested the complaint, arguing that the complainant was not a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the purchase was for commercial purposes. They also contended that the director could not be held personally liable in the absence of specific allegations of misconduct. It was further submitted that the complainant was informed about the change in allotment and provided with a cause sheet to sign, but he failed to comply. According to the builder, the lapse was attributable to the complainant himself.
Commission’s Findings
The bench rejected these arguments and held that since the flat was booked for residential purposes, the complainant fell within the definition of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The Commission further ruled that the one-sided terms of the application form could not be enforced against the complainant, observing: “The terms and conditions of the application form are one-sided and not binding upon the complainant.”
The Commission also noted that the builder had failed to either refund the booking amount or hand over possession despite repeated requests, which amounted to deficiency in service. In doing so, the bench relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. v. Devasis Rudra, which held that a buyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession. The bench also referred to the National Consumer Commission’s decision in Raj Caprihan v. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. to reinforce that arbitrary change in allotment without consent cannot deprive a consumer of legitimate remedies.
On the director’s liability, the bench observed that though he had resigned in March 2020, he was a director at the time of the transaction, making him a necessary party to the proceedings.
Final Order
Holding the builder and its director jointly and severally liable, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed them to:
Refund ₹5,40,430 to the complainant with 12% interest per annum from the date of payment until realization.
Pay ₹50,000 as compensation.
Pay ₹25,000 towards litigation costs.
The order directed compliance within two months. The State Commission thus allowed the consumer complaint, fixing responsibility on Lucina Land Development Ltd. and its director for failing to honor their contractual obligations.
Appearance
For the Complainant: Advocate K.M. Nair
For Opposite Party: Advocate Ajay Pawar
Cause Title: Suresh Kumar T V. Lucina Land Development Ltd.
Case No: Consumer Complaint No. 19/583
Coram: Mukesh V. Sharma [Presiding Member], Poonam V. Maharshi [Memeber]
