Dhananjay Jog
The concept of consumer protection is relatively recent. In the 1960s, activist Ralph Nader began speaking up for consumer rights in the U.S. President John F. Kennedy supported the cause and formally introduced the idea in his 1962 address to the U.S. Senate (the equivalent of our Parliament). The movement eventually led the United Nations to urge member nations in 1985 to enact consumer protection laws. India responded by passing the Consumer Protection Act in 1986.
But buyers have always existed. Long before money, people bartered—like a farmer trading a goat for salt. Back then, if a buyer felt cheated, the only option was to approach the courts, where minor grievances were buried under years of backlog. Hence, the old saying: “Let the buyer beware”. The Consumer Protection Act changed this dynamic—it made sellers more accountable. Now, the phrase is “Let the seller beware”. And that’s where the seller in this case faltered.
Laxmikant Desai purchased a flat in a Ponda project named ‘Orange Supreme’ (names changed). His agreement with the developer, Orange Builders, included the flat, undivided rights to the property, and a parking space, all for Rs. 39 lakhs. He paid
Rs. 3 lakhs upfront, and the balance in scheduled installments. The builder, Suresh Mashelkar, promised possession before Ganesh Chaturthi, as construction was nearing completion.
However, Desai never received possession. He had been making payments as per the schedule in the agreement. More than a year beyond the promised delivery date, Mashelkar handed over a copy of the Occupancy Certificate issued by the Ponda Municipal Council and demanded full payment. Desai complied, but later discovered he had ended up paying Rs. 40.8 lakhs—Rs. 1.8 lakhs more than the agreed sum. When he pointed this out, Mashelkar promised to refund the excess amount but failed to do so.
Even six months after the Occupancy Certificate and the excess payment, Desai still had not received possession. And when Desai inspected the premises, he found water seepage and a leaking kitchen slab. Despite repeated requests, no repairs were done.
Desai then issued a legal notice, demanding that Mashelkar hand over the completed flat within 15 days. Though Mashelkar received the registered notice, he neither repaired the flat nor handed over possession. Instead, he demanded an additional Rs. 7,43,000 under various heads—balance payment, interest on delayed payments, parking space charges, sinking fund, transformer and electrical installation costs, and legal fees. Desai contended that none of these were due as per their agreement. In fact, Mashelkar owed him a refund of Rs. 1.8 lakhs. Desai approached the Consumer Commission with his complaint, backed by the sale agreement, bank documents, receipts totalling Rs. 40.8 lakhs, his legal notice, and Mashelkar’s reply.
In response to the Commission’s notice, Mashelkar filed his reply. He denied any deficiency in service, claiming the agreed price of Rs. 39 lakhs excluded the cost of parking. He also alleged that Desai hadn’t paid
Rs. 39 lakhs as claimed, but only Rs. 36 lakhs in two installments, and denied receiving Rs. 3 lakhs at the time of the agreement. Mashelkar also claimed that Desai had requested modifications—such as red brick walls, velvet-finish paint, and the enclosure of balconies—which were not part of the agreement and required additional payment. Subject to these payments, he said, he was ready to hand over possession. He also submitted copies of registered letters sent to Desai, along with their acknowledgment cards.
Both parties filed affidavits and written arguments reiterating their claims, and their counsel presented oral arguments. We examined all the documents. All the receipts produced by Desai bore Mashelkar’s signature, and there was no allegation of forgery. The total amounted to Rs. 40.8 lakhs, supporting Desai’s claim of excess payment. The agreement clearly listed Rs. 39 lakhs as the total consideration, which included the parking space. Mashelkar’s claim that the extra Rs. 1.8 lakhs was for modifications remained unsubstantiated. No evidence was produced to prove that such modifications were requested or carried out. To resolve conflicting claims, we appointed a civil engineer to inspect the flat. His report revealed that the electricity connection was not provided, the lift was not installed, paver tiles were missing, walls were unpainted, lights were absent, and the steel railing in the main hall was rusted. Despite receiving this report, Mashelkar made no attempt to rectify the issues before judgment.
We concluded that there was indeed a deficiency in service on Mashelkar’s part. There was also an unreasonable delay. Instead of receiving his flat in about eight months (from January to Ganesh Chaturthi), Desai was still waiting over three years later. We directed Mashelkar to complete all remaining work in the flat to Desai’s satisfaction within 45 days. He was also ordered to return the Rs. 1.8 lakhs with interest from the date of Desai’s last payment until the actual date of refund. Also, Desai was awarded Rs. 25,000 as compensation and Rs. 15,000 in costs.
(If you have any questions, comments, or if you are a consumer seeking assistance, please feel free to email me at danjog@yahoo.com)
