The order was passed in Consumer Complaint No. CC/129/2015 filed by Bhupendra D. Trivedi against Rockline Construction Company and RNA Corporation. The Commission held both developers jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Flat booked at ₹3,100 per sq. ft.

According to the complaint, Trivedi, a Mumbai-based businessman, approached the developers in 2009 after seeing advertisements for a residential project in Mira Road (East). The flats were being offered at ₹3,100 per sq. ft.

He booked a 763 sq. ft. flat identified as Unit-3L/14 and paid ₹5 lakh as the initial booking amount. To arrange the remaining payment through a bank loan, he asked the developers to execute and register an Agreement for Sale.

The buyer also submitted proof of loan eligibility for ₹24 lakh from Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank. A letter from the bank, addressed to the developers, supported his claim that he was prepared to proceed with the transaction once the necessary agreement was executed.

Registration delay stalled the transaction

In October 2010, the developers sent a letter indicating that they would initiate the registration process. At the same time, they warned that delayed payments would attract interest at 24% per annum.

The buyer maintained that he repeatedly requested registration of the agreement so that the bank loan could be released. However, according to his case, the developers stopped responding and did not complete the transaction.

Trivedi alleged that the developers deliberately delayed the process to pressure him into withdrawing from the booking. He claimed that the purpose was to free the flat for resale at a higher market price.

Developers allegedly demanded a higher rate

In March 2014, Trivedi again approached the developers and expressed his willingness to pay the balance amount, including bank-related interest. By then, however, the developers allegedly refused to honour the original price of ₹3,100 per sq. ft.

Instead, they demanded ₹7,000 per sq. ft. to complete the transaction. The buyer claimed that the demand was an attempt to take advantage of the sharp rise in property prices in Mira Road.

During a subsequent inspection of the site, he allegedly discovered that the building had been completed, a housing society had been formed and the flat booked by him had been sold and handed over to another person.

Commission relies on unchallenged evidence

The developers did not file a written version despite notice. An earlier order dated July 18, 2017 recorded that no written version had been filed. The Commission later directed the developers to remain present for the hearing, but they again failed to appear.

The matter was finally heard on May 6, 2026, in the absence of the developers. As a result, the buyer’s pleadings and evidence remained unchallenged.

The Commission examined the booking receipts, bank statements and the bank’s letter. It concluded that the documents established the payment of ₹5 lakh and the buyer’s readiness to pay the remaining consideration, subject to execution of the statutory agreement.

Failure to register agreement held a violation

The Commission referred to Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The provision requires a builder or developer to execute and register an Agreement for Sale before accepting more than the prescribed portion of the sale price as advance payment.

The Commission held that the developers had accepted a substantial booking amount but failed to execute the registered agreement. This was treated as a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

It also noted that the developers did not formally cancel the booking or refund the ₹5 lakh. Instead, they allegedly demanded a substantially higher rate and sold the allotted flat to a third party.

Alternative flat or ₹1.1 crore package

Since the original flat had already been sold and occupied, the Commission found that ordering possession of that specific unit was not feasible. It therefore granted alternative relief to the homebuyer.

The developers have been directed to provide:

• A vacant and peaceful 763 sq. ft. flat in the same project or the immediate vicinity of Mira Road (East).
• The alternative flat at the original rate of ₹3,100 per sq. ft.
• Execution and registration of the Agreement for Sale within 60 days.
• Possession after receiving the balance consideration from the buyer.

If the developers cannot provide such an alternative flat, they must instead:

• Refund ₹85 lakh with interest at 10% per annum from the dates of payment until realisation.
• Pay ₹25 lakh as compensation for the escalation in residential property prices.
• Pay ₹1 lakh for mental agony and harassment.
• Pay ₹50,000 towards litigation costs.

Taken together, the fixed monetary components amount to ₹1.11 crore, apart from the interest directed on the ₹85 lakh refund. The order also provides that if the developers fail to comply within 60 days of receiving the order, the financial awards will carry enhanced interest at 12% per annum from the date of default until actual payment.

Relief for buyer, warning for builders

The order offers an important message to homebuyers who face prolonged delays after paying booking amounts. It indicates that a developer cannot retain a buyer’s money, avoid executing the required agreement, later demand a sharply higher price and then dispose of the booked property without consequences.

The Commission held Rockline Construction Company and RNA Corporation jointly and severally liable. This means the successful buyer can seek compliance from either or both developers for the relief awarded under the order.

The case also highlights the importance of preserving booking receipts, bank correspondence, loan-sanction documents, payment records and written communication with developers. Such documents can help establish both the buyer’s readiness to complete the purchase and the developer’s conduct during the dispute.

Also Read: Builders Took ₹90 Lakh, Sold Flat to Someone Else — Consumer Commission Orders ₹1.05 Crore Refund

The post Builder told to give Mira Road flat at 2009 rate or pay ₹1.1 crore appeared first on Square Feat India.