Ravi Group’s earns a 4.6-star rating from 9 reviews, showing that the majority of property buyers are exceptionally satisfied with real estate investments.
- All
- Reviews only
- Complaints only
- Resolved
- Unresolved
- Replied by the business
- Unreplied
- With attachments
Keywords
conveyance flat purchasers occupation certificate compliances pending high court matters municipal approvals ulc permissions unauthorised work unauthorized buildings approvals track record occupancy certificate builder court order possession pending compliances advertisements articles breaches commencement certificaterefund of cancelled flat - gaurav crest
We had booked a flat in gaurav crest in october 2017 with rs.1, 00, 000/-. They made us apply for a loan via lic housing finance which we did and our loan was sanctioned as well however lic refused to disburse funds for their gaurav crest project saying they are fraud and that they do not give the possession on time. The bank told us not to go ahead with this project. This wasn't our fault as our loan was sanctioned so we decided to cancel the deal. And we asked for a full refund of rs.1, 00, 000/-. I have messages and recordings in which it is clearly said that our full rs.1, 00, 000/- will be refunded to us. They made us run around with our cancellation letter from mira road to kandivali, kandivali to mira toad and then finally we submitted our cancellation letter at the ravi group office in kandivali on february 14th, 2018 to ravindra. Who promised us that since it is a small refund you will get it by the end of february. Every week from the end of february it is the same excuse from them saying that they are waiting for someone's transfer to come and once that comes they will transfer our refund. They even lost our cancellation letter and again around march 10th 2018 we had to submit another letter to ravindra and hems. I have a message from hems dates march 16th 2018 that our cancellation was accepted and that gaurav of ravi group has approved for the full refund as it wasn't our fault. From that day till now it's nothing but excuses. That ravindra has also lied to us each n every week. This company has no money whatsoever. Imagine if they do have rs.1, 00, 000/- what will they build buildings and give. Every week that gaurav says he will refund the money. He never comes on the phone. Last we met ravindra in the 2nd week of april and he passed on our paperwork for the refund and he said it will happen in a day or two and he left for his native place. He told us u can call me if u don't receive it I will help u guys. He gave us all [censored] and now he doesn't answer our calls. I got a hold of shetal from the admin team who works with ravindra and it's the same story. Until now I haven't received my refund and I don't know if I will. I will keep fighting I will not let go... If there are other people like us we should all join in and make this builder straight he can't rob people's money and hide. I will not let go. You can't rob someone's hard earned money. Please join us in this fight. These people are horrible and noone should book flats with ravi group anywhere. They are cheats. And so are the people working for him all are cheats. They just give u bull [censored].
ravi group's dubious track record cherishes fraud, cheating, unauthorised
Ravi Group has the highest number of unauthorized buildings to his credit. The List of unauthorised buildings where work was carried out beyond Municipal approvals are as under: (as per information received under RTI, Court records, news articles)
Mumbai:
The majority of the buildings in Mumbai are unauthorised. In 2001-02 MCGM declared these buildings as "unauthorised" and still the developer fails to obtain Occupation Certificate as compliances
Sr Name of building Approval no. Status
1 Gaurav Place: CHE4096WSAR Partly demolished in June’2007/
Unoccupied
2 Gaurav Villa: Kandivali-W CE/8929/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 1994-95
3 Gaurav Heights: Kandivali-W CE/8930/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 1997-98
4 Gauarav Gagan CHE/7526/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending
5 CHE/2453/BP/WS/AR
Compliances pending Occupied since 2001.02
6 CHE/7530/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 1995-96
7 CHE/0442/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 2001.02
8 CHE/0443/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 2001.02
9 CHE/0444/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 2001.02
10 CHE/2482/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 2001.02
11 CHE/2483/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 2001.02
12 CHE/0441/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 2001.02
13 CE/6710/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 2001.02
14 Building No. I(4) at CTS No. 620 Village Malad
Compliances pending Occupied since 2002-3
15 Building No. I(5) at CTS No. 620 Village Malad Compliances pending
Occupied since 2002-3
16 CHE5960 Bldg No. G at CTS No. 620 Village Malad
Compliances pending/ Occupied since 2004-05
17 CE7558WSAK Details N.A. / Occupied since 2003-04
18 The Mall, Malad-W Occupied since 2003-04
Mira Road:
Majority of buildings were constructed without approvals. Letter on back dated/ approvals obtained. The developer failed to obtained Occupation Certificates of majority of the buildings in Mira Road. Unauthorised work is carried out in recent buildings details are as under:
1. Gaurav Woods Phase I & II
2. Gaurav Valley
3. Gaurav Excellency
4. Gaurav Safron
4. Gaurav Avenue
5. Gaurav Sankalp
MCGM and Municipal Commissioner, Mira Road has confirmed above facts of unauthorised work by filing affidavits in High Court matters.
The developer has breached majority of conditions of ULC permissions and sold out flats reserved for handing over to the Government in majority of projects in Mira Road & Mumbai.
The developer has so far not executed conveyance in favour of any Society of hundreds of buildings constructed by him in Mira Road & Mumbai.
It is fact that developer has not completed any project in time. This developer is infamous for selling flats to more then one flat purchasers and dupe hundreds of innocent purchasers. Even he does not afraid to register flat documents of same flat in favour of more than one party!
This builder publishes huge advertisements and offers very competitive rates to lure innocent purchasers. People out of greed, get attracted by these advertisements and purchase flats. However, later on the project gets delayed and the hard earned money at a great risk. Desperate purchasers rush to get keys of flats even though Lift is not installed or Official water connection is not obtained by builder as they found huge risk to get the flat sold to another party! However, they are not aware that the developer has not obtained requisite permissions, Occupation Certificates, Lift Safety Permission, Permanent Water connection etc. All these non-compliances result into declaration of building as “unauthorised” in Municipal Records.
The officers do not take any action till the builder completes entire work, sale all flats and receive majority of money from purchasers. After that, for eye wash, Municipal Officers issues notices to the builder that the building is unauthorised. After issuing such notices, the Authorities withheld all further balance important permissions like CC & Occupation Certificates to these buildings and the officers finishes their duty. Surprisingly, these notices never served to flat purchasers hence this fact never came to their knowledge. People pay higher water & property assessment charges for non-compliances.
What is regrettable is that the authorities continue to grant approvals for new projects to this builder without compelling him to complete pending compliances in respect of old projects on priority!
Thus, innocent flat purchasers are penalized by the authorities though there is no default on their part and what is most regrettable is that they even did not bother to inform the occupants of these buildings that their buildings are “unauthorised” on record or their developer has not completed majority of compliances for which they have withheld much important mandatory permission!
Our Shri Sudhir Khandwala, flat purchaser with help of other flat purchasers has taken up these issues in interest of flat purchasers who become victims of well planned, deliberate irregularities of this developer. However, the hands of Ravi Group are so high that it is difficult to get justice easily.
Therefore, members of general public are hereby warned to not to purchase flats from this builder considering his dubious track record.
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
how Maharashtra GOVT quiet How RERA gave certificate .Unite and file FIR
To celebrate, the company first anniversary, Some commodities have been, discount .Anti-purchase at this site Any goods, we will giving a Christmas gift .In addition Buy $ 300 and receive a free glasses or a wallet, as a Christmas gift . welcome all friends to order. Reputation, quality, absolute guarantee. please log in: http://www.fashionsb.com . so what, move your mouse .
know modus operandi of ravi group to cheat; know how to safeguard you!
MCGM and Municipal Commissioner, Mira Road have by filing affidavits in High Court matters confirmed facts that majority of the buildings of Ravi Group constructed found “unauthorised” or the builder has not completed majority of requisite mandatory compliances due to which authorities withheld Occupation Certificates of majority of his existing building...
Read full review of Ravi Group and 7 commentsIs Ravi Group Legit?
Ravi Group earns a trustworthiness rating of 100%
Highly recommended, but caution will not hurt.
We found clear and detailed contact information for Ravi Group. The company provides a physical address, 2 phone numbers, and 2 emails, as well as 2 social media accounts. This demonstrates a commitment to customer service and transparency, which is a positive sign for building trust with customers.
By resolving 88% of 9 negative reviews, Ravi Group is demonstrating its dedication to customer satisfaction and effectively addressing customer issues. While there may still be some practical problems that need to be addressed, such as long wait times or unhelpful responses.
Ravigroup.in has a valid SSL certificate, which indicates that the website is secure and trustworthy. Look for the padlock icon in the browser and the "https" prefix in the URL to confirm that the website is using SSL.
Ravigroup.in has been deemed safe to visit, as it is protected by a cloud-based cybersecurity solution that uses the Domain Name System (DNS) to help protect networks from online threats.
Ravigroup.in regularly updates its policies to reflect changes in laws, regulations. These policies are easy to find and understand, and they are written in plain language that is accessible to all customers. This helps customers understand what they are agreeing to and what to expect from Ravi Group.
However ComplaintsBoard has detected that:
- Ravi Group protects their ownership data, a common and legal practice. However, from our perspective, this lack of transparency can impede trust and accountability, which are essential for establishing a credible and respected business entity.
- The website belonging to Ravi Group has a low number of visitors, which could be a red flag for users. However, it's important to conduct additional research to fully evaluate the website's legitimacy and trustworthiness.
See how Consumer Court compelled Ravi Group directed to obtain O.C. and give Conveyance to Mira Road Society
Consumer Court compelled Ravi Group directed to obtain CC and give Conveyance to Mira Road Society viz. Gaurav Enclave who are occupying flats since 1998-99. See the entire Court order!
But what is pity is that even after this order, the Ravi Group succesfully divided the Society members and make them fighting with each other instead of proceeding further for execution of the Court order!
Lesson: Better do not buy the flats from this builder !
The Court order:
तक्रार क्रमांक – 308/2009
तक्रार दाखल दिनांक – 20/05/2009
निकालपञ दिनांक – 02/02/2010
कालावधी - 00 वर्ष 08महिने 13दिवस
जिल्हा ग्राहक तक्रार निवारण मंच, ठाणे यांचे समोर
गौरव एन्क्लेव्ह सी.एच.एस
क्लस्टर - 3, मिरा-भायंदर रोड,
मिरा रोड(पु), जिल्हा-ठाणे. .. तक्रारदार
विरूध्द
रवी डेव्हलपर्स
लक्ष्मी पॅलेस, 76, मथुरादास रोड,
कांदिवली(पश्चिम), मुंबई 400 067. .. विरुध्दपक्ष
समक्ष - सौ. भावना पिसाळ - प्र. अध्यक्षा
श्री. पी. एन. शिरसाट - सदस्य
उपस्थितीः- त.क तर्फे वकिल राम पांडे
वि.प एकतर्फा
एकतर्फा आदेश
(पारित दिः 02/02/2010)
मा. प्र. अध्यक्षा सौ. भावना पिसाळ, यांचे आदेशानुसार
1. सदरहु तक्रार गौरव एन्क्लेव्ह सी.एच.एस तर्फे श्री.सतीश कुमार सिंग यांनी रवी डेव्हलपर्स विरुध्द C.C, O.C व कन्व्हेयन्स करुन देण्यासाठी दाखल केली आहे.
2. तक्रारदार सोसायटीचे सदर विरुध्द पक्षकार हे डेव्हलपर आहेत. विरुध्द पक्षकार यांचा जागेच्या मालकाशी 2001-02 मध्ये डेव्हलपरचा करारनामा नोंदणीकृत आहे. विरुध्द पक्षकार यांनी सदर सोसायटी सर्वे नं. 72/2, 73/1, 2, 3, 4, 74/1, 2, 79/1, 3, 4, 75/1 जीसीसी जवळ मिरा भायंदर रोड(पुर्व), जिल्हा ठाणे, हे डेव्हलप करायला घेतली होती. त्याची परवानगी गव्हरमेंट ऑफ महाराष्ट्र अन्डर अर्बन लॅन्ड सिलींग अन्ड रेग्युलेश अक्ट 1976 प्रमाणे मिळाली होती. तक्रारदार सोसायटीने विरुध्द पक्षकार यांना इन्डेक्स 2 चे रु.45, 000/- खर्च करुन काढुन दिले होते. पण तरीही अद्यापी अनेकदा मागणी करुनही OC व CC व सदर सोसायटीच्या जागेचा कन्व्हेयन्स करुन दिलेला नाही. त्याची मागणी तक्रारदारांनी नुकसान भरपाई सकट केली आहे
3. मंचाच्या मते विरुध्द पक्षकार यांनी OC, CC, व कन्व्हेयन्स करुन देणे हि त्यांची नैतिक व कायदेशीर जबाबदारी आहे. मंचाने नोटिस बजावुनही विरुध्द पक्षकार हजर राहिले नाहीत व त्याची लेखी कैफीयत त्यांनी दाखल केली
.. 2 ..
नाही म्हणुन मंचाने दि.24/08/2009 रोजी विरुध्द पक्षकार विरुध्द एकतर्फा आदेश पारित केला. हे मंच पुढील प्रमाणे एकतर्फा अंतीम आदेश देत आहे.
अंतीम आदेश
1.तक्रार क्र. 308/2009 हि अंशतः मंजुर करण्यात येत आहे. विरुध्द पक्षकार यांनी या तक्रारीचा खर्च रु.1, 000/-(रु. एक हजार फक्त) तक्रारदार यांस द्यावा.
2.विरुध्द पक्षकार यांनी तक्रारदार सोसायटी गौरव एन्क्लेव्ह याच्या नावे कन्व्हेयन्स व OC, CC करुन देणे या आदेशाची अमलबजावनी या आदेशाची प्रत मिळाल्यापासून 2 महिन्यांच्या आत करावे.
3.विरुध्द पक्षकार यांनी तक्रारदार सोसायटीस मानसिक त्रास व नुकसान भरपाई पोटी रु. 20, 000/-(रु. वीस हजार फक्त) द्यावे.
4.उभयपक्षकारांना या आदेशाची सही शिक्याची प्रत निःशुल्क देण्यात यावी.
5.तक्रारकर्ता-यांनी मा.सदस्यां करिता दाखल केलेले सेट (2 प्रती) त्वरित परत घ्याव्यात, मुदती नंतर मंचाची जबाबदारी नाही.
दिनांक – 02/02/2010
ठिकान - ठाणे
(सौ.भावना पिसाळ ) (श्री.पी.एन.शिरसाट )
प्र.अध्यक्षा सदस्य
जिल्हा ग्राहक तक्रार निवारण मंच, ठाणे
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
beware! ravi group is expert in getting rejecting genuine consumer complaints, see 14 orders
Ravi group is expert in getting rejecting genuine consumer complaints. see 14 consumer orders. the reason was the advocate of complainants poorly represented the case and it dismissed on technical fault! see the 14 consumer court orders. appeal pending. the complainants have genuine complaints and facing hardships before 1995! still their fight is on! is it wise to add you name in victims of ravi group?
Lesson: better do not buy flats from this builder!
Before consumer dispute redressal forum
Mumbai suburban district
Admn. bldg., 3rd flr, nr. chetana college, bandra (e), mumbai 400 051.
complaint no. df/msd/410/02
date of filing-23/12/2002
date of order-11/2/2009
Mrs. nirupama r. shah
Flat no. b 401
Gaurav geet, a/b wing
Gaurav garden, bunder pakhadi road
Kandivali (w), mumbai 400 067. complainant
V/s.
1. ravi real estate developer’s pvt. ltd.
builder & developers
laxmi palace, 76 mathuradas road
kandivali (w), mumbai 400 067.
2. brihanmumbai municipal corporation
thru: executive engineer
building proposals (western suburbs)
h & k west wards
patkar marg, bandra (w)
mumbai 400 050. opponents
present - shri. r.d. gate, president
smt. deepa s. bidnurkar, member
shri. v.g. joshi, member
Shri. deshpande, advocate for the complainant
Shri. imtiaz raibakker, advocate for opponent no.1.
Opponent no.2 absent.
Judgment per shri. v.g. joshi, hon’ble member-
The complainant’s contention in brief-
the complainant influenced by attractive advertisements and brochures issued by the opponent no.1. the complainant paid amount of rs.12, 25, 000/- towards the cost of flat 401, b wing, 11th floor and amenities as well as other charges such as society charges, 10 years layout maintenance and other charges
2
Towards parking, maintenance, betterment, legal and electric meter deposit to the ravi real estate developers pvt. ltd., opponent no.1.
the complainant placed the grievances against the opponent no.1 which are enumerated below-
1. although it was assured while entering an agreement, the occupation certificate has not been obtained for the building in which the complainant’s flat is located till the date of filing of this complaint.
2. as per section 10 of the mofa the opponent no.1 is required to form the co-operative society within four months from the date on which minimum number of persons required to form the co-operative society, who have booked the flat. the opponent no.1 failed and neglected to form the co-operative society and as such the complainant and other members had to take initiative to form the society since the opponent no.1 failed and neglected to form the society, is liable to refund the amount collected from the complainant with 18% interest p.a. thereon from the date of payment till realization.
3. the opponent no.1 also failed/neglected to give conveyance of the property of the society despite repeated reminders. the opponent no.1 is liable under section 11 of the mofa to give conveyance in favour of the society within four months of its formation.
The complainant alleged that the opponent no.1 did not provide the other amenities as promised and advertised such as club house, swimming pool, two lifts, adequate parking facility.
The complainant further states that the opponent no.1 has not mentioned about the charges payable by the flat purchaser towards the parking facility in the agreement. however, in reality the opponent no.1 collected garage charges from the flat purchaser. the flat owners were not allowed to enter the building complex in
3
Their vehicle if they had not purchased the parking space either in stilts or open parking space. at the time of giving the possession the opponent no.1 has collected rs.26, 250/- form the complainant towards 10 years layout maintenance charges. here too, the agreement is silent about such payment by the flat purchaser. according to section 4 (ia) (iv) of the mofa, the opponent no.1 is legally bound to mentioned in the agreement the price of the flat including the proportionate price of the common areas and facilities which should be shown separately. the opponent no.1 cannot collect a single rupee from any flat purchaser in connection with the flat unless the same is mentioned in the agreement. this amounts to unfair and deceptive trade practice. moreover, the opponent no.1 has collected betterment and layout charges @ rs.15% sq. ft., property tax, water charges, but did not pay to the respective authorities. later on bmc slapped auction notice for collection of these dues and water is being provided on the humanitarian ground with twice the normal charges.
The complainant admits that gaurav geet chs filed a civil suit no.3190/2003 in the high court. however, according to him this complaint is sustainable for a variety of reasons mentioned herebelow.
A) the complaint filed by him before hon’ble forum precedes the civil suit filed by the society in the high court.
B) the reliefs claimed by him in the complaint are not identical to those claimed in the said civil suit.
C) the remedy provided under the consumer protection act, as expressly provided under section 3 the parliament was well aware of the remedy available under section 9 of code of civil procedure.
Thus parliament intends to provide the additional remedy to the consumer. it is also a settled position that the provisions under the
4
Consumer protection act supplement and not supplant the jurisdiction of civil court.
Finally the complainant prayed for the following reliefs-
the opponent be directed –
1. to obtain the occupation certificate form bmc within 2 months failing which fine of rs.100/- be made payable to the complainant per month till obtaining said occupation certificate.
2. to refund amount of rs.3260/-collected on account of society formation share money and entrance fees alongwith 18% interest p.a. from the date of collection till realization.
3. to give conveyance in favour of the society within 3 months from the date of order.
4. to provide swimming pool within two months from the date of order and also to pay compensation of rs.10, 000/- for deprivation of the facility.
5. to install two more lifts within two months and also to pay compensation of rs.15, 000/- for hardship.
6. to refund layout maintenance charges of rs.26, 250/- with 18% interest p.a. from the date of collection till realization.
7. to give account of betterment charges collected.
8. to refund property tax of rs.21, 000/- paid by the society to bmc with 18% interest p.a.
9. to obtain normal and full water supply from bmc within 2 months from the date of order.
10. to pay compensation of rs.500/- per sq. ft for not providing amenities/facilities shown in the sale brochure and in the agreement.
5
11. to pay compensation of rs.50, 000/- for all the hardship and losses suffered by the complainant.
12. to refund club house deposit of rs.25, 000/- collected from the complainant alongwith 18% interest p.a. for not providing the club house.
13. to refund garage charges of rs.31, 000/- with 18% p.a. interest from the date of collection till realization.
In reply of opponent no.1-
the opponent no.1 contended that the complaint filed is not maintainable, bad in law and as such deserves to be dismissed. the complainant has made several false and misleading statements and has also suppressed several vital and relevant facts from the hon’ble forum.
at the further outset, opponent no.1 submits that the complainant alongwith other flat purchasers being the members of gaurav geet c.h. s.l. have already filed civil suit being suit no.3190 of 2003 filed in the high court of judicature at bombay on the same subject matter and on the ground of complaining of the same grievances. the present complaint therefore is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on this ground also.
with reference to grievances in respect of occupation certificate opponent no.1 says that the complainant and other flat purchasers and their society themselves are responsible for delay in obtaining occupation certificate. besides since november 2002 a public interest litigation being writ petition no.379 of 2003 regarding 154 buildings in the city of mumbai has been filed in the hon’ble high court by some third persons and hon’ble high court has stayed the regularization of any further building.
6
as regards the refund in respect of the amount collected towards formation of co-operative society opponent no.1 is willing to refund the amount collected from the complainant without any interest thereon.
in respect of conveyance of the property in favour of society, the opponent no.1 states that as the complainants’ building is a part of a big layout which is still under construction development, and the layout comprises several properties amalgamation together. the conveyance of the one portion or the building cannot be executed under prevalent law. accordingly the opponent is not liable to convey the property at this juncture in as much as the conveyance will be required to be executed by opponent no.1 in favour of the apex society of all the societies. there are about 13 buildings in the entire layout already constructed and further 3 to 4 buildings with more wings are likely to be constructed in view of the available fsi/tdr and as per entitlement of opponent no.1, and as per agreement opponent no.1 is required to execute the conveyance after having consumed total fsi as also floating fsi on the said property. opponent no.1 further says that the layout being a very big layout, it was expected to be constructed over a period of 10 years and more, and therefore there was no malafide intention in collecting the amount towards maintenance charges for ten years.
opponent no.1 finally concluded with the statement that the allegations made by the complainant are baseless, false, premature and malafide. the complainant has miserably failed to make out any case for grant of any relief or for refund of any amount or compensation from the hon’ble court hence deserves to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
the opponent no.2 has not filed its say and even complainant did not press for the same.
7
read complaint, written reply of the opponent no.1 and written argument of both parties. perused the exhibits and other documents produced in support of the complaint.
the following points arise for my consideration.-
points findings
1. is the complainant consumer? yes
2. is the complaint barred by law of limitation no
3. is the complaint tenable? no
4. what order? as per final order.
Reasons-
Points no.1 to 3 together-
as regards the points mentioned herein my findings are as follows-
the complaint is not barred by law of limitation as the cause of action is continuous since statutory.
the gaurav geet chsl has filed a civil suit bearing no.3190 of 2003 in the bombay high court wherein the same reliefs were claimed by the society and the complainant is also a member of the same society. no doubt the registered housing society is having separate legal entity and represents all its members to voice their grievances. but the grievances against the developer/promoter raised either by the members individually or society as a whole cannot be different.
although it is true that the provisions under the consumer protection act supplements and not supplant the jurisdiction of the civil court and the provisions of this act shall be in addition and not in derogation of any other law, it is an option given to an individual to chose either consumer forum or civil court but not both at a time even though the remedies available at both the court are more or less similar. the provisions of code of civil procedure order ii rule ii are also quite clear about it.in this context section 3 – syp.6 (b) on page 561 of commentary of the law of consumer protection in india, fifth edition is very specific and reads as
8
Follows - “matter pending in civil court between the same parties for the same cause of action – if the matter is pending before the civil court between the same parties for the same cause of action, the district forum will not entertain the complaint, because under section 3 of consumer protection act, the consumer agencies are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law and that complaint before redressal forum is an additional remedy.”
Hence, complainant is not liable to approach consumer forum and civil court simultaneously for similar reliefs. there is no provision either in the c.p. c. or consumer protection act, 1986 to grant reliefs in part basis. on the contrary the reliefs which are not prayed for are treated as relinquished and no further claim can be entertained once the case is finally decided. taking into consideration above findings, this complaint is not maintainable, therefore liable to be dismissed. hence, the following order is passed.
order
1. the complaint is not tenable hence is dismissed.
2. no order in respect of opponent no.2.
3. no order as to cost.
4. copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Mumbai
/2/2009
(v.g. joshi)
member
We agree,
(smt. deepa s. bidnurkar) (r.d. gate)
member president
Rsc
Before consumer dispute redressal forum
Mumbai suburban district
Admn. bldg., 3rd flr, nr. chetana college, bandra (e), mumbai 400 051.
complaint no. df/msd/410/02
date of filing-23/12/2002
date of order-11/2/2009
Mrs. nirupama r. shah
Flat no. b 401
Gaurav geet, a/b wing
Gaurav garden, bunder pakhadi road
Kandivali (w), mumbai 400 067. complainant
V/s.
1. ravi real estate developer’s pvt. ltd.
builder & developers
laxmi palace, 76 mathuradas road
kandivali (w), mumbai 400 067.
2. brihanmumbai municipal corporation
thru: executive engineer
building proposals (western suburbs)
h & k west wards
patkar marg, bandra (w)
mumbai 400 050. opponents
present - shri. r.d. gate, president
smt. deepa s. bidnurkar, member
shri. v.g. joshi, member
Shri. deshpande, advocate for the complainant
Shri. imtiaz raibakker, advocate for opponent no.1.
Opponent no.2 absent.
Judgment per shri. v.g. joshi, hon’ble member-
The complainant’s contention in brief-
the complainant influenced by attractive advertisements and brochures issued by the opponent no.1. the complainant paid amount of rs.12, 25, 000/- towards the cost of flat 401, b wing, 11th floor and amenities as well as other charges such as society charges, 10 years layout maintenance and other charges
2
Towards parking, maintenance, betterment, legal and electric meter deposit to the ravi real estate developers pvt. ltd., opponent no.1.
the complainant placed the grievances against the opponent no.1 which are enumerated below-
4. although it was assured while entering an agreement, the occupation certificate has not been obtained for the building in which the complainant’s flat is located till the date of filing of this complaint.
5. as per section 10 of the mofa the opponent no.1 is required to form the co-operative society within four months from the date on which minimum number of persons required to form the co-operative society, who have booked the flat. the opponent no.1 failed and neglected to form the co-operative society and as such the complainant and other members had to take initiative to form the society since the opponent no.1 failed and neglected to form the society, is liable to refund the amount collected from the complainant with 18% interest p.a. thereon from the date of payment till realization.
6. the opponent no.1 also failed/neglected to give conveyance of the property of the society despite repeated reminders. the opponent no.1 is liable under section 11 of the mofa to give conveyance in favour of the society within four months of its formation.
The complainant alleged that the opponent no.1 did not provide the other amenities as promised and advertised such as club house, swimming pool, two lifts, adequate parking facility.
The complainant further states that the opponent no.1 has not mentioned about the charges payable by the flat purchaser towards the parking facility in the agreement. however, in reality the opponent no.1 collected garage charges from the flat purchaser. the flat owners were not allowed to enter the building complex in
3
Their vehicle if they had not purchased the parking space either in stilts or open parking space. at the time of giving the possession the opponent no.1 has collected rs.26, 250/- form the complainant towards 10 years layout maintenance charges. here too, the agreement is silent about such payment by the flat purchaser. according to section 4 (ia) (iv) of the mofa, the opponent no.1 is legally bound to mentioned in the agreement the price of the flat including the proportionate price of the common areas and facilities which should be shown separately. the opponent no.1 cannot collect a single rupee from any flat purchaser in connection with the flat unless the same is mentioned in the agreement. this amounts to unfair and deceptive trade practice. moreover, the opponent no.1 has collected betterment and layout charges @ rs.15% sq. ft., property tax, water charges, but did not pay to the respective authorities. later on bmc slapped auction notice for collection of these dues and water is being provided on the humanitarian ground with twice the normal charges.
The complainant admits that gaurav geet chs filed a civil suit no.3190/2003 in the high court. however, according to him this complaint is sustainable for a variety of reasons mentioned herebelow.
D) the complaint filed by him before hon’ble forum precedes the civil suit filed by the society in the high court.
E) the reliefs claimed by him in the complaint are not identical to those claimed in the said civil suit.
F) the remedy provided under the consumer protection act, as expressly provided under section 3 the parliament was well aware of the remedy available under section 9 of code of civil procedure.
Thus parliament intends to provide the additional remedy to the consumer. it is also a settled position that the provisions under the
4
Consumer protection act supplement and not supplant the jurisdiction of civil court.
Finally the complainant prayed for the following reliefs-
the opponent be directed –
14. to obtain the occupation certificate form bmc within 2 months failing which fine of rs.100/- be made payable to the complainant per month till obtaining said occupation certificate.
15. to refund amount of rs.3260/-collected on account of society formation share money and entrance fees alongwith 18% interest p.a. from the date of collection till realization.
16. to give conveyance in favour of the society within 3 months from the date of order.
17. to provide swimming pool within two months from the date of order and also to pay compensation of rs.10, 000/- for deprivation of the facility.
18. to install two more lifts within two months and also to pay compensation of rs.15, 000/- for hardship.
19. to refund layout maintenance charges of rs.26, 250/- with 18% interest p.a. from the date of collection till realization.
20. to give account of betterment charges collected.
21. to refund property tax of rs.21, 000/- paid by the society to bmc with 18% interest p.a.
22. to obtain normal and full water supply from bmc within 2 months from the date of order.
23. to pay compensation of rs.500/- per sq. ft for not providing amenities/facilities shown in the sale brochure and in the agreement.
5
24. to pay compensation of rs.50, 000/- for all the hardship and losses suffered by the complainant.
25. to refund club house deposit of rs.25, 000/- collected from the complainant alongwith 18% interest p.a. for not providing the club house.
26. to refund garage charges of rs.31, 000/- with 18% p.a. interest from the date of collection till realization.
In reply of opponent no.1-
the opponent no.1 contended that the complaint filed is not maintainable, bad in law and as such deserves to be dismissed. the complainant has made several false and misleading statements and has also suppressed several vital and relevant facts from the hon’ble forum.
at the further outset, opponent no.1 submits that the complainant alongwith other flat purchasers being the members of gaurav geet c.h. s.l. have already filed civil suit being suit no.3190 of 2003 filed in the high court of judicature at bombay on the same subject matter and on the ground of complaining of the same grievances. the present complaint therefore is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on this ground also.
with reference to grievances in respect of occupation certificate opponent no.1 says that the complainant and other flat purchasers and their society themselves are responsible for delay in obtaining occupation certificate. besides since november 2002 a public interest litigation being writ petition no.379 of 2003 regarding 154 buildings in the city of mumbai has been filed in the hon’ble high court by some third persons and hon’ble high court has stayed the regularization of any further building.
6
as regards the refund in respect of the amount collected towards formation of co-operative society opponent no.1 is willing to refund the amount collected from the complainant without any interest thereon.
in respect of conveyance of the property in favour of society, the opponent no.1 states that as the complainants’ building is a part of a big layout which is still under construction development, and the layout comprises several properties amalgamation together. the conveyance of the one portion or the building cannot be executed under prevalent law. accordingly the opponent is not liable to convey the property at this juncture in as much as the conveyance will be required to be executed by opponent no.1 in favour of the apex society of all the societies. there are about 13 buildings in the entire layout already constructed and further 3 to 4 buildings with more wings are likely to be constructed in view of the available fsi/tdr and as per entitlement of opponent no.1, and as per agreement opponent no.1 is required to execute the conveyance after having consumed total fsi as also floating fsi on the said property. opponent no.1 further says that the layout being a very big layout, it was expected to be constructed over a period of 10 years and more, and therefore there was no malafide intention in collecting the amount towards maintenance charges for ten years.
opponent no.1 finally concluded with the statement that the allegations made by the complainant are baseless, false, premature and malafide. the complainant has miserably failed to make out any case for grant of any relief or for refund of any amount or compensation from the hon’ble court hence deserves to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
the opponent no.2 has not filed its say and even complainant did not press for the same.
7
read complaint, written reply of the opponent no.1 and written argument of both parties. perused the exhibits and other documents produced in support of the complaint.
the following points arise for my consideration.-
points findings
1. is the complainant consumer? yes
2. is the complaint barred by law of limitation no
3. is the complaint tenable? no
4. what order? as per final order.
Reasons-
Points no.1 to 3 together-
as regards the points mentioned herein my findings are as follows-
the complaint is not barred by law of limitation as the cause of action is continuous since statutory.
the gaurav geet chsl has filed a civil suit bearing no.3190 of 2003 in the bombay high court wherein the same reliefs were claimed by the society and the complainant is also a member of the same society. no doubt the registered housing society is having separate legal entity and represents all its members to voice their grievances. but the grievances against the developer/promoter raised either by the members individually or society as a whole cannot be different.
although it is true that the provisions under the consumer protection act supplements and not supplant the jurisdiction of the civil court and the provisions of this act shall be in addition and not in derogation of any other law, it is an option given to an individual to chose either consumer forum or civil court but not both at a time even though the remedies available at both the court are more or less similar. the provisions of code of civil procedure order ii rule ii are also quite clear about it.in this context section 3 – syp.6 (b) on page 561 of commentary of the law of consumer protection in india, fifth edition is very specific and reads as
8
Follows - “matter pending in civil court between the same parties for the same cause of action – if the matter is pending before the civil court between the same parties for the same cause of action, the district forum will not entertain the complaint, because under section 3 of consumer protection act, the consumer agencies are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law and that complaint before redressal forum is an additional remedy.”
Hence, complainant is not liable to approach consumer forum and civil court simultaneously for similar reliefs. there is no provision either in the c.p. c. or consumer protection act, 1986 to grant reliefs in part basis. on the contrary the reliefs which are not prayed for are treated as relinquished and no further claim can be entertained once the case is finally decided. taking into consideration above findings, this complaint is not maintainable, therefore liable to be dismissed. hence, the following order is passed.
order
1. the complaint is not tenable hence is dismissed.
2. no order in respect of opponent no.2.
3. no order as to cost.
4. copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Mumbai
/2/2009
(v.g. joshi)
member
We agree,
(smt. deepa s. bidnurkar) (r.d. gate)
member president
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
state commission rejects appeal of ravi group against order in genuine complaint
See how arpan darpan society goregaon (e) compelled the ravi group to provide lawful water connection & formation of society; though possession was given as back as 1997. ravi group filed appeal against court order but the state commission rejected their appea l! see the entire order!
Lesson: better you do not buy the flats from this builder. as till date, oc of this building has been withheld by the authorities as the builder has shifted slum dwellers on the d. p. road for project. then constructed new building "heena jewel" at land from where the slum dwellers were shifted who are still on road!
The entire order is as under:
Consumer disputes redressal commission
Maharashtra state, mumbai
First appeal no. 2541 of 2006 date of filing : 28/11/2006
@ misc. appl. no. 2941 of 2006 date of order : 18/06/2008
In consumer complaint no. 326 of 2000
District consumer forum : mumbai suburban
Mr.ketan t. shah
Director of m/s.ravi ashish
Land developers ltd. having office
At laxmi palace, 76, mathuradas road,
Kandivli (w), mumbai-400 067. … appellant/org. o.p.
v/s.
1. arpan darpan residents association
gaurav empire, kanyapada
off. film city road, gokuldham,
goregaon (e), mumbai-400 063.
2. mr.suresh parikh
c.m. of complainant no.1
3. mr.suresh kajriwal
asstt. chairman of complainant no.1
4. mr.arvind purohit
gen. secretary of complainant no.1
5. mr.ravin goyal
asstt. secretary of complainant no.1
all r/at arpan, gaurav empire, kanyapada,
off. film city road, gokuldham,
goregaon (e), mumbai-400 063. … respondents/org. complainants
corum : justice mr.b.b. vagyani, hon’ble president
shri p.n. kashalkar, hon’ble judicial member
smt. s.p. lale, hon’ble member
present: mr.a.v patwardhan, for the appellant.
none for the respondents/org. complainants.
- : oral order :-
Per justice mr. b.b. vagyani, hon’ble president
this appeal filed by org. o.p. in consumer complaint no.326/2000 is directed against the order dated 19/09/2006 passed by mumbai suburban district consumer forum.
we heard mr.a.v patwardhan, for the appellant/org. o.p. proof of service together with affidavit of service is taken on record. none present for the respondents/org. complainants.
we examined the correctness of the order under challenge.
from perusal of the record, it is revealed that the flats were booked long back. the builder delivered possession of the flats to the respective purchasers on or before 31/12/1997. the flat purchasers were forced to take possession under the threat of cancellation of allotment. in fact there were major deficiencies. however, the flat purchasers accepted the possession having no alternative. in absence of occupancy certificate, possession is not lawful. physical possession supported by occupancy certificate is to be treated as lawful possession. in absence of occupancy certificate, physical possession is not lawful possession in the eyes of law. the forum below therefore rightly directed the builder to provide occupancy certificate.
in absence of occupancy certificate, the flat purchasers are required to pay more for water supply. therefore, the forum below directed the builder to supply water. in fact there is supply of water. however, it is not lawful. the builder in para 9 of the written statement has contended as under :-
“as regards the municipal water supply the opposite party submits that as soon as the complainants building clears the outstanding property taxes payable to the m.c.g.m., the opposite party shall proceed to procure the occupation certificate for the complainants building & which will take 6 to 8 months there from. there upon the m.c.g.m. will grant the regular bigger water connection for the complainants building. however, in the meanwhile complainants building is provided with m.c.g.m. water connection and the complainants have made a palpably statement that they are purportedly entirely dependant on the tanker water as alleged.”
taking into consideration the contention raised in para 9 of the written statement, we direct the builder to make water supply legal, so that the flat purchasers need not to pay more. the learned advocate mr.patwardhan argued that the builder is ready to form co-op. housing society, but the members are not extending their co-operation. if the members are reluctant to extend assistance in the matter of formation of co-op. housing society, then the builder cannot be blamed. we therefore propose to direct all the flat purchasers to extend full co-operation to the builder in the matter of formation of co-op. housing society. the forum below has directed the builder to execute conveyance deed in favour of co-op. housing society. this direction is very much necessary in order to confer lawful title. the builder is rightly directed to furnish accounts. the possession was delivered in 1997. the occupancy certificate is not yet obtained. therefore, the forum below directed the builder to pay compensation of rs.10, 000/- to each of the org. complainant nos.2to5 and cost of rs.10, 000/- in one set. the order under challenge therefore does not suffer from any illegality. in the result, we pass the following order :-
-: order :-
1. appeal stands dismissed. however, we are giving certain directions by way of clarifications.
2. the appellant/org. o.p. is directed to give lawful water supply. similarly, in the matter of formation of co-op. housing society, all the flat purchasers including complainants shall extend full co-operation to the builder and sign requisite forms, which are required for formation of co-op. housing society.
3. no order as to costs.
4. misc. appl. no.2941/2006, which is for stay stands disposed of.
5. copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(s. p. lale) (p.n. kashalkar) (b.b. vagyani)
member judicial member president
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
It is same as my case, I purchased flat in 2011 in gaurav valley phase 2 and I was promised for possession in Jun 2012, the was completed in Oct 2013 and due to non availability of CC loan was not disbursed by banks..
No builder is asking me for interest at the rate of 24%... and blaming me that I have delayed the payment for there illegal activities.
It's not just my case, there are neatly 20 ppl suffering similar to my case in gaurav valley project by ravi groups..
Please don't trust this builder and spread the news as much as possible.
I can Say Ravi Builder is Baap of Cheaters...
After 1000 cheater die than one this Mr Jayesh Saha the owner of Ravi Builder is born
i put my all hard earned money to buy a flat in year 2010 in ever shine cosmic building - Andheri - West. under the assurance position by march 2011 or max 2011 Diwali.
Ravi Builders cheating case flooded on internet and such a volume cheating is not possible unless he build a strong Officers lobby to protect him
Today in June 2014 the situation is same as the day i buy the flat ... . Even now single Brick is added. In Ravi Builder Office one person namely Nimesh bhai from Ravi builder is always have one excuse to another excuse.
I say since 4 year we are staying in Rented flat and we are in deep trouble due to Ravi Builder fraud.
Now I think one of the my family member now need to sacrifice life in Rabi Builder office .. this is only last option to open the eyes of such builder and officers who protect such builder.
Ramesh Nahata
state consumer commissioned slapped fined of rs.6.50 lacs to ravi group
State consumer commissioned slapped fined of rs.6.50 lacs to ravi group
The state commission has slapped heavy fine of rs.6.50 lacs to ravi group for false promises to flat purchasers at time of booking and not obtaining occupancy certificate of building. the project name is "gaurav empire" cts no. 620 village malad. address:kannyapada, ahead of gokuldham, filmcity road, goregaon (e).
However, what is regrettable is that the complaint have to wait for ten long years for this justice! better you do not purchase the flat from ravi group!
The entire state commission order is as under:
Consumer disputes redressal commission
Maharashtra state, mumbai
date of filing : 08/01/2000
Consumer complaint no. 07 of 2000 date of order : 27/12/2010
1. pradip kumar roy
2. anirban roy
both r/at flat no.502, “gaurav arpan”
gokuldham, goregaon (e),
mumbai – 400 063. … complainants
v/s.
1. m/s. ravi ashish land developers ltd.
regd. office at laxmi palace,
76-mathuradas road, kandivali (w),
mumbai – 400 067.
2. the directors of
m/s. ravi ashish land developers ltd. …opponents
quorum : shri p.n. kashalkar, hon’ble presiding judicial member
mrs. s.p. lale, hon’ble member
Appearance : ms. ratnarani roy, advocate for the complainants.
ms. payal agrawal, advocate for the o. ps.
-: order :-
Per shri p.n. kashalkar, hon’ble presiding judicial member
this consumer complaint has been filed under section 17 of consumer protection act, 1986 by father and son. it is the case of the complainants against o. ps. who are builders/developers that they are consumers of o.p. no.1 who is builder/developer of which o.p. no.2 as per list are directors. according to the complainants, complainant no.1 was serving in indian oil corporation in 1982 and throughout his tenure he was in mumbai. till his retirement in 1995 he was provided accommodation by the company in best locality of the city. he did not have any place of residence of his own in mumbai. he therefore wanted to book a flat through estate agency.in 1997 he learnt that o.p. no.1/m/s. ravi ashish land developers ltd. were inviting applications for housing complex in goregaon (east), mumbai. said housing complex is styled as “gaurav empire” and advertised as ‘exclusive home for exclusives’. brochure of the o.p. no.1 mentioned that the entire housing complex would be completed and possession of the flats would be delivered in june 1997. complainant no.1 was assured that he would be getting real value of his money, if he purchase a flat in the said gaurav empire. on inquiring with o.p. no.1 he was satisfied that the flat in gaurav empire housing complex will be best suited flat for the person like him, who wanted house in mumbai. so, they applied for purchase of flat in gaurav empire building. the saleable area of the flat was 825 sq. ft. and carpet area was 612 sq. ft. consideration fixed was `16, 50, 000/-. out of which `12, 37, 500/- was payable in cheque and balance amount of `4, 12, 500/- was payable in cash before issuance of allotment letter. by letter dated 05/03/1997 o.p. no.1 agreed to allot flat no.502 in “gaurav arpan” in the “gaurav empire housing complex” to the complainants. complainant no.1 took housing loan to pay the consideration of this flat. he mortgaged said flat to the lok group housing finance company. he is paying emis on the said loan amount. after issuance of allotment letter by o.p. no.1, complainants paid `4, 12, 500/- in cash. they also paid further payment as per particulars given in para 11 of the complaint. these payments were made by the cheques. they claimed that the entire consideration of `16, 50, 000/- was paid by complainant no.1 to o.p. no.1 within five months from the date of issuance of allotment letter. according to the complainants, o. ps./builder had assured that there would be seven storey building with three wings, arpan, darpan and samarpan and three towers, namely, deep, darshan and maharaja retreat and 12 row-houses in the gaurav empire housing complex and there would be amenities of road and sufficient street lights, flower decked landscaped garden, club house & community hall, paygrounds and kinder-garden, jogging tracks, gymnasium, swimming pool, library and would be surrounded by compound wall and there would be security gate at main entrance of the lay out. with these assurances, complainants entered into an agreement of sale of the said flat with o.p. no.1 on 29/03/1998 (exhibit-c of complaint). representative of the o.p. no.1 had initially assured that gaurav empire housing complex will be completed and possession would be given very soon. according to the complainants, even before execution of agreement of sale, they were assured that flat would be ready by june 1997 and would be delivered to the flat purchasers. but, they went on changing the dates and even on the date of execution of agreement they were unable to give possession of the flat to them. complainants found that at the site, progress of developing gaurav empire housing complex was not going on with full swing because the area was occupied by slum dwellers and the builder/developer had simply started construction of only one 7 storey building having two wings. there was no access to the gaurav arpan building by way of any approach road. the entry to the site as depicted in the plan did not exist. there was only one pathway leading to the building from the adjacent road. complainants found that the flat booked by them in gaurav arpan was not complete and ready for possession. there was no regular water connection and water was supplied to the building by tanker. lift of the building was not in operation. according to the complainants on 17/01/1998 o.p. no.1 wrote to the complainants referring to their letter dated 26/10/1997 that said letter was threatening one and complainants were asked to take physical possession by completing payment within 7 days. said letter is at exhibit-j dated 17/01/1998. complainants then undertook another inspection of said flat on 23/01/1998 and as expected there is no iota of change in the situation as in october 1997. they told o.p./builder that said flat and building were not habitable in any respect and once again asked the director of o.p. no.1 to inspect the site and decide if they can ask him to take possession of the flat in the conditions in which it stood. there was no approach road and there was no bmc water connection even when the joint inspection was made at their request by the complainants themselves and representative of o.p./builder. complainants enclosed copy of joint inspection report dated 02/02/1998. however, on the assurance given about completion of remaining work, complainants reposed faith in o.p. no.1 and accordingly entered into the agreement of sale with o.p. no.1 on 29/03/1998. said agreement is at exhibit-c.in the said agreement, it was conveyed by o.p. no.1 that possession would be handed over on 30/04/1998. thereafter, complainants made final payment of `64, 500/- and after that payment, complainant no.1 agreed to take temporary possession for furnishing the flat. he also paid certain other charges as demanded by the o.p. vide exhibit-m and receipts issued by o.p. no.1 evidencing receipt of payments with regard to electricity charges, etc. is at exhibit-m1. complainants pleaded that thus on 14/07/1998 total payment of flat was completed in every respect and on the same day, complainants wrote o.p. no.1 and asked them to issue final possession letter. however, o.p. no.1 failed to produce occupation certificate of bmc and consequently failed to hand over possession as promised and they merely issued a letter handing over temporary possession dated 17/07/1998. even on that date water connection of bmc was not obtained nor there was any approach road. construction of flat on site had come to standstill. according to the complainants, flat in their possession is certainly not habitable in any manner and was not certainly in a state for which they had bargained. o.p. no.1 has failed to give official legal possession to them even after 13 months of the originally promised date. since previous landlord asked the complainants to move out of his licence premises in july 1998, complainants had not option, but to shift to the flat under the guise of temporary possession of flat in july 1998, on which date, according to the complainants flat was neither habitable nor it was as per the agreement. but, they were required to shift to the said flat since otherwise they would have to take resort of bmc roads. complainants have pleaded in the complaint that following are the deficiencies in the said complex :–
a) absence of approach road
b) non-availability of regular water supply from bmc.
c) absence of occupation certificate of bmc
d) poor quality of construction and poor building maintenance.
Listing these grievances, complainants have prayed that they should be refunded the amount of `12, 37, 500/- the purchase price paid to the o.p. no.1 by the complainants on 29/03/1998. they also prayed `4, 12, 500/- be refunded to them which o.p. no.1 collected by way of additional cash component. they also prayed that `1, 32, 000/- be reimbursed towards stamp duty, registration charges and brokerage paid by the complainants. they also prayed for `55, 835/- being reimbursement of the society maintenance charges paid by the complainants. further, amount of `1, 58, 450/- being financial burden incurred by the complainants in terms of licensed flat rents and interest @ 18% p.a. on the entire amount of consideration paid by the complainants and suitable compensation.
o.p. filed affidavit in reply.in the affidavit, constituted attorney of o.p. no.1 mentioned that complaint as filed is not maintainable as the complaint filed by the complainants did not constitute any service and therefore, it should be dismissed with cost. he further stated in his affidavit in reply that complaint is pre-mature and in as much as, housing complex in which gaurav arpan is situated is a vast complex under construction as admitted by the complainants themselves and therefore, complaint of the complainants is false and imaginary and o. ps. are in the process of completing the housing complex and providing all the amenities. they have admittedly not abandoned the project and therefore, the complaint is pre-mature and should be dismissed. o. ps.in their affidavit stated that complainants had suppressed material fact from this commission that they themselves had requested for temporary possession of the flat for furniture and as per their request, possession of the flat was handed over to them to carry out furniture work as per their letter under exhibit-1. complainants also suppressed the fact that o. ps. agreed to complete the building gaurav arpan by 30/04/1998 as clearly mentioned in para 10 of the agreement annexed at exhibit-c to the complaint. complainants are clearly molding the facts to suit their convenience. complainants have filed this complaint just to pressurize them to refund the purchase price and other amounts and for this purpose the complaint has been filed. but, it is nothing but the abuse of process of law and should be dismissed. o. ps. pleaded that they never promised the complainants that the entire housing complex would be completed by june 1997. as per allotment letter and agreement annexed to the complaint, rate charged to the complainants was not fixed at 2, 000/- per sq. ft. as alleged by the complainants. o. ps. pleaded that date of possession was mutually extended by talking to complainants and in the agreement, it was specifically stated that expected date of possession was 30/04/1998. however, on 30/04/1998 no possession was given, but at the request of complainants as per exhibit-1, o. ps. handed over temporary possession of the flat to the complainants in july 1998 and consequently, complainants were not entitled in law for making any grievance in that regard. they pleaded that o. ps. are in the process of completing the entire complex but construction has been delayed on account of various factors, namely, sudden and continuous slump in the estate market and dealing with about 900 slum dwellers with several litigations, order of injunctions, etc. o. ps. pleaded that grievances of the complainants about the approach road is absolutely false. approach road of gaurav arpan building is already completed and street lights have been installed and they are functional. o. ps. pleaded that because of non-availability of water from bmc, it was pleaded that though regular supply is not given, mcgm is already supply water on humanitarian ground and therefore, grievance of non-availability of water made by the complainants is false. o. ps. pleaded that occupation certificate has been held up by the bmc on account of default in payment of property taxes committed by the complainants and other flat purchaser for the building. liability of the flat purchasers in the building is at present to the tune of `27 lakhs and only upon payment of said tax amount together with current property tax, if any, mcgm would issue occupation certificate. complainants are suppressing this relevant fact from this commission. they are taking advantages of their own wrong. o. ps. pleaded that when payment of entire property tax is made by complainants and other flat purchasers, then only they would procure occupation certificate from mcgm and consequently, mcgm would also grant bigger water connection for the said building. o. ps. pleaded that poor building maintenance is because of flat purchasers not paying maintenance charges. there was no builder’s liability to maintain the building. it is flat purchasers’ liability who are occupying their own flats.in the circumstances, o. ps. pleaded that grievance of the complainants regarding deficiencies in services are absolutely false and imaginary and even pre-mature since entire lay out is yet to be completed and after buildings are completed layout amenities would be provided by the o. ps. therefore, it pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with costs.
parties filed their own affidavits in support of their respective pleadings.
we heard submissions of both the parties. written arguments have been placed on record by counsel for the complainants. we also perused the same. following issues arise for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under :-
issues findings
1. do the complainants prove that o. ps. have yes
Not been procured occupation certificate
From mcgm?
2. do the complainants prove that they have not yes
given dream flat as promised by o. ps?
3. whether complainants are entitled to get yes
compensation on two counts – 1) non-
supply of municipal water and 2) non-
procurement of occupation certificate?
4. what order? as per final order.
Reasons
Issue no.1 :- it is not in dispute that complainants took possession of the flat in july 1998 in terms of agreement executed between the parties on 29/03/1998. it is not in dispute that the full consideration was paid by the complainants. however, it is the grievance of the complainants that o. ps. have not procured occupation certificate. now, it is common knowledge that occupation certificate is an essential pre-requisite for giving legal possession of the flat to the person booking flat. unless occupation certificate is there, legally flat purchaser is not permitted to occupy the said flat. so, it is therefore sine-quo-non on the part of the builder/developer to procure completion certificate immediately after completion of the construction of the building.in this case, building was completed somewhere in june-july 1998. possession was given in on 31/07/1998 and though the complainants are occupying said flat their occupation is illegal because builder has not procured occupation certificate from the bmc. this is per se a deficiency in service. builder’s case is that property tax of the said building has not been paid by the occupants of the flats, but he did not adduce any evidence in that behalf. what is important to note is the fact that it is statutory as well as contractual obligation on the part of the builder to procure occupation certificate. then only, the flat purchasers can be put in possession of their respective flats. so, there is contractual as well as statutory deficiency in service on the part of builder/m/s. ravi ashish land developers ltd.in not procuring occupation certificate till this date since more than 10 years has lapsed from filing of the complaint. we therefore record our finding on issue no.1 in the affirmative.
Issue no.2 :- it is the grievance of the complainants that they had booked flat in gaurav empire housing complex being developed by o.p. no.1. complex necessarily means a group of buildings with facility of swimming pool, gardens, gymnasium, club house, school, etc. and it is the complainants’ grievance that no such amenities have been provided by the builder though 13 years have elapsed since they took possession of the flat on 31/07/1998. builder’s case is that it is the housing complex of very large scale and about 900 hutments are required to be removed and therefore, he constructed only two buildings. gaurav arpan is one in which complainants had occupied the flat. he has not denied his liability to raise housing complex styled as ‘gaurav empire housing complex’ as exclusive home for exclusives. but, fact remains even after 13 years he could hardly construct two buildings and there is only one road leading to these buildings from the nearby municipal road which is having streetlight. nothing else is developed. therefore, grievance of the complainants that ‘a dream house in dream project’ which was catch word of o. ps./builder is nowhere seen and they are leaving in a very sorry state of affairs. housing complex is not fully developed by the builder. complainants mentioned that they are ashamed of their house given by the o.p. and their dream of a good house as per their advertisement published in the brochure has been shattered.in any view of the matter, we are finding that the state of affairs of the present building of the complainants which is seen from the photographs and which is admittedly surrounded by the hutments and slum dwellers, cannot be said to be a dream house which was advertised by the builder and therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of builder in not building housing complex styled as ‘gaurav empire – exclusive home for the exclusives’ as per their advertisement and brochure. we therefore record our finding on issue no.2 in the affirmative.
Issue no.3 :- it is no doubt true that occupation certificate is not procured by the builder and once occupation certificate is not there, the municipal corporation of greater mumbai is not releasing legal water connection to such society or to such building. when occupation certificate is not there, we have to presume that (leaving apart the affidavit of complainants) the building is not having legal water connection. no doubt, o.p./builder in his affidavit in reply stated that on humanitarian ground, municipal corporation was supplying water. but, such water supply can be withdrawn at any point of time because it was not legally given water connection. moreover, when water is being supplied on humanitarian ground, full supply of water per person of the family member is not released by the municipal corporation. so, the flat purchaser in such a situation gets reduced water supply than otherwise entitled to if they would have had legal water connection taken from the municipal corporation. so, on this count, complainants are entitled to get compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of o.p./builder.
complainants have also claimed in their revised prayers that o.p. be directed to take back the flat from the complainants and complainants should be given compensation as per market value obtainable for such flat in that locality or builder should be directed to give any other flat of same carpet area in the same locality at his expenses or alternatively, complainants have claimed `70 lakhs being market value of the subject flat. complainants also asked compensation for mental harassment they suffered because of deficiency in service on the part of builder relating to the home of the complainants when they have spent entire lifetime income for procuring flat in housing complex. moreover, they have been given a flat of ordinary construction with no proper environment. we are finding that there has been deficiency in service on the part of o.p./builder in not developing whole of the housing complex as per brochure. builder has also not constructed swimming pool, garden, etc. building is surrounded by hutments and slum dwellers and it is an ordeal for persons like complainants to stay in such surrounding in their flat which is not having occupation certificate and legal water connection. despite the fact, that since july 1998 till 30th october 2010 nothing has been done to improve the situation of gaurav empire housing complex.in the circumstances, we are inclined to allow the complaint partly to give some reliefs to the complainants though we do not agree with the complainants that their agreement should be cancelled and they should be given back refund of moneys together with difference between the price of said flat and the market value of the flat which they would be required to purchase in 2010. what is important to note is the fact that the complainants had taken possession of the flat despite the fact that the building was not having occupation certificate and water connection. from the undated letter produced on record attached to the affidavit in reply, it is clear that the complainants were hard pressed to vacate their then existing leave and licence premises. landlord was after them and therefore, ultimately they approached the o.p./builder and took possession of the flat on emergency basis by end of july 1998. under these circumstances, they had taken possession of the flat and they have resided in the said flat for more than 12 years and now, they cannot be permitted to surrender this flat in favour of o.p. and to claim from o.p. refund of consideration paid plus difference in the current market value of the flat which they would be required to purchase. so, this prayer cannot be allowed, but some compensation will have to be granted to the complainants for the situation they are put in by the builder and for the obvious deficiency in service, builder is guilty. hence, we are of the view that amount of `5 lakhs should be granted as compensation for the mental harassment suffered by the complainants in requiring to take possession of such flat in their undeveloped ‘gaurav empire housing complex’. complainants are also required to be duly compensated for non-giving of occupation certificate of their flat though more than 12 years have elapsed. we are of the view that we should direct o.p./builder to pay `1, 000/- per month as compensation from 31/07/1998 till the builder actually procures occupation certificate from the municipal corporation of greater mumbai. this sort of penalty is required to be imposed so as to induce the builder to immediately procure occupation certificate for the said flat from the municipal corporation of greater mumbai, so that the complainants could live peacefully in the said flat and can have legal water connection from the municipal corporation. the builder will have to be directed to pay cost of `25, 000/- to the complainants since complainants are required to prosecute this complaint for last 10 years.in the circumstances, we pass the following order :-
-: order :-
1. complaint is partly allowed.
2. o.p./builders are directed to pay a sum of `5 lakhs as compensation for mental harassment to the complainants for various deficiencies in service discussed above.
3. o. p/builders are further directed to pay `1, 000/- per month to the complainants right from 01/08/1998 till actual procurement of occupation certificate from the municipal corporate of greater mumbai.
4. o.p. /builders are further directed to pay `25, 000/- as cost of the complaint o the complainants and bear their own costs.
5. copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(s.p. lale) (p.n. kashalkar)
member presiding judicial member
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
ravi group owners are basically dons and take pride in it. there stupid and brainless sons are running the familiy business and are equally corrrupt and chore. worst buileder in India. not one single thing is good about them. one day soon they will pay a veery heavy price for all their nusance and pain caused to innocent people. worst people and shame on name of jains
Modus operandi of Ravi Group to lure/cheat innocent flat purchasers and the Safeguards to protect you from Ravi Group
Mcgm and municipal commissioner, mira road have by filing affidavits in high court matters confirmed facts that majority of the buildings of ravi group constructed found “unauthorised” or the builder has not completed majority of requisite mandatory compliances due to which authorities withheld occupation certificates of majority of his existing buildings in mira road & mumbai. There are several things buyers must know to be able to protect themselves.
1. You will get some project approvals from bank, but they actually do not care and never bother to verify that whether the builder has complied with all the conditions. So please, don’t believe them on don’t rely on them. Every document you receive needs a full atention. There are many things banks just don’t do, for example, they do not verify the track record of any builder and they do not verify whether there were any breaches. We tried to contact the national housing bank and the leading banks, but it did not lead us anywhere. In case you lose your money, bank won’t be responsible for it. So, be very careful and don’t give them your hard earned money so easily.
2. Builders are actually smart people, they make huge attractive advertisements to make people purchase flats. You my see some articles in news papers or tv, but don’t rely on them. If an article is published in any news it doesn’t mean it can be trusted. Remember that builders pay big money for their articles to be published.
3. If the developer wants to register flat sale documents then he needs to provide the copy of commencement certificate (CC) or Bandhkam Parvana. Without these documents registration authorities cannot register anything. However, the Ravi Group never provided these documents but had registered the flat sale documents. Then we contacted Mumbai authorities and complaint. They almost stopped this practice, but there were still Mira road & Bhayender that continued this this practice. Remember that you have all the rights to verify the cc personally. Don’t forget to also check the IOD, floor plan, layout plan and etc. Before paying.
4. It is also very important to check the survey number of the land where the building will be constructed. You must verify everything carefully! The information provided in layout plans and commencement certificate may differ. Don’t forget to ask for a copy of the architect’s letter, because Ravi group uses known architect names and put their signatures without their knowledge. Also don’t forget to check the original plan and the latest one. If you are not sure about what you see or something seems strange, then don’t be afraid, take a copy of the plan and send it for the inspection. Ravi group is well known for using the cc of the other buildings.
5. Every floor must be shown in CC, it is a very important detail. If, for example, your floor received the CC, but the upper floors were not mentioned it means that the entire building is “unauthorized”. There is actually a scheme that they use to not allow people to use their flats at all. For example, imagine that the actual building contains only 15 floors and the builder has received a CC for 20 floors. It means that you cannot use your flat before the entire building (All 20 floors) will be completed. Before paying check that entire building and all the floors are mentioned in CC. Ask the builder personally now many floors there will be in the end, and compare that information with the CC.
6. Let us talk about the mcgm. They said that if all the important compliances would not be made, all existing buildings will be declared as unauthorized! That happened because the ravi group did not register all the documents and provided some fake ones too. After the builder sold out all the flats, he actually does not care about what will happen with the buildings and buyers. Check all the documents very carefully! It is necessary to check whether all documents are fully paid. And it is importand to check who’s name is mentioned in the property register card. If you’ll see different person’s name then ask for all the documents showing a chain between the person and the developer.
7. The developer will give you promises, but remember that you need some proofs. The only solution to this is to ask the developer to provide all his promises in a written form.
8. Don’t forget to check the terms and conditions of the draft flat sale agreement.
9. And the most important part is the track record. That is the only thing that really shows if the builder has complied with his promises in his past projects.
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
pl. take help of Mr. Rajan Vasu Nair, who is a good person and runs NGO, he will be a hope to resolve the complaint
they are gang of Jayesh, Gauarav, kean shah cheaters of A grade and thug, they make flase promises and dont have fund to pay / refund the money, they have project on papers and destroyed the dreams of a common man
@nrkhan - We request you to please send us the detailed mail and we shall take it with the concerned department. Request you to write us at customercare@ravigroup.in along with updated contact details and one of my representative will call you.
Thanks & Regards
Ravi Group - Admin
Hello,
Apologise for the inconvenience caused to you. We request you to kindly drop your queries on customercare@ravigroup.in along with updated contact details. We shall look at it at the earliest.
Thanks for your co-operation
Thanks & Regards
Ravi Group - Admin
plz let me know what is the current ststus of gaurav aster
bcoz the above 6was knocked by mbmc
but now cleaning work &some work is going on
builder says posession will be given in 3 months
is it true
Recently Ravi groups Gaurav Aster 7 floor demolished by Mira Bhayender Muncipal corporation, the 7 seven floor was illegal constructed by the Ravi Group without permission from legal authority, buyers are felt cheated and builder is not available to comment. buyers hard earn money is stuck and it is sure they will not get their money back as Ravi group builder is big fraud reputation, Recently brokers are displaying the joint project between Ravi group and HDIL knows as Era or Hdil vuelta Era in Malad west near atharva college. I warn buyers stay away from this project as Ravi group history is worst in cheating buyers. In andheri Gaurav Legend is also a same where buyers are struggling to get their money back and from last three year project is in same possession. big risk in investing in 20:80 or pre-lunch scheme, recently RBI also warned banks not provide loans to 20:80 and pre-lunched project.
I agree with these comments. But I am also stuck as I have purchased a flat with Ravi developer in Gaurav Samruddhi and stuck with them, as unable to get loan from any bank.
Request if anyone can help me get refund from the Builder.
I agree what ever stated is true Builder is not willing to give noc for electricity
Dubious Track record of Ravi Group
Ravi Group has the highest number of unauthorized buildings to his credit. The List of unauthorised buildings where work was carried out beyond Municipal approvals are as under: (as per information received under RTI, Court records, news articles)
Mumbai:
The majority of the buildings in Mumbai are unauthorised. In 2001-02 MCGM declared these buildings as "unauthorised" and still the developer fails to obtain Occupation Certificate as compliances
Sr Name of building Approval no. Status
1 Gaurav Place: CHE4096WSAR Partly demolished in
June’2007/ Unoccupied
2 Gaurav Villa: Kandivali-W CE/8929/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 1994-95
3 Gaurav Heights: Kandivali-W CE/8930/WS/AR Compliances
pending / Occupied since 1997-98
4 Gauarav Gagan CHE/7526/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending
5 CHE/2453/BP/WS/AR
Compliances pending Occupied since 2001.02
6 CHE/7530/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 1995-96
7 CHE/0442/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 2001.02
8 CHE/0443/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 2001.02
9 CHE/0444/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 2001.02
10 CHE/2482/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 2001.02
11 CHE/2483/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 2001.02
12 CHE/0441/BP/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 2001.02
13 CE/6710/WS/AR Compliances pending /
Occupied since 2001.02
14 Building No. I(4) at CTS No. 620 Village Malad
Compliances pending Occupied since 2002-3
15 Building No. I(5) at CTS No. 620 Village Malad Compliances
pending Occupied since 2002-3
16 CHE5960 Bldg No. G at CTS No. 620 Village Malad
Compliances pending/ Occupied since 2004-05
17 CE7558WSAK Details N.A. / Occupied since 2003-04
18 The Mall, Malad-W Occupied since 2003-04
Mira Road:
Majority of buildings were constructed without approvals. Letter on back dated/ approvals obtained. The developer failed to obtained Occupation Certificates of majority of the buildings in Mira Road. Unauthorised work is carried out in recent buildings details are as under:
1. Gaurav Woods Phase I & II
2. Gaurav Valley
3. Gaurav Excellency
4. Gaurav Safron
4. Gaurav Avenue
5. Gaurav Sankalp
MCGM and Municipal Commissioner, Mira Road has confirmed above facts of unauthorised work by filing affidavits in High Court matters.
The developer has breached majority of conditions of ULC permissions and sold out flats reserved for handing over to the Government in majority of projects in Mira Road & Mumbai.
The developer has so far not executed conveyance in favour of any Society of hundreds of buildings constructed by him in Mira Road & Mumbai.
It is fact that developer has not completed any project in time. This developer is infamous for selling flats to more then one flat purchasers and dupe hundreds of innocent purchasers. Even he does not afraid to register flat documents of same flat in favour of more than one party!
This builder publishes huge advertisements and offers very competitive rates to lure innocent purchasers. People out of greed, get attracted by these advertisements and purchase flats. However, later on the project gets delayed and the hard earned money at a great risk. Desperate purchasers rush to get keys of flats even though Lift is not installed or Official water connection is not obtained by builder as they found huge risk to get the flat sold to another party! However, they are not aware that the developer has not obtained requisite permissions, Occupation Certificates, Lift Safety Permission, Permanent Water connection etc. All these non-compliances result into declaration of building as “unauthorised” in Municipal Records.
The officers do not take any action till the builder completes entire work, sale all flats and receive majority of money from purchasers. After that, for eye wash, Municipal Officers issues notices to the builder that the building is unauthorised. After issuing such notices, the Authorities withheld all further balance important permissions like CC & Occupation Certificates to these buildings and the officers finishes their duty. Surprisingly, these notices never served to flat purchasers hence this fact never came to their knowledge. People pay higher water & property assessment charges for non-compliances.
What is regrettable is that the authorities continue to grant approvals for new projects to this builder without compelling him to complete pending compliances in respect of old projects on priority!
Thus, innocent flat purchasers are penalized by the authorities though there is no default on their part and what is most regrettable is that they even did not bother to inform the occupants of these buildings that their buildings are “unauthorised” on record or their developer has not completed majority of compliances for which they have withheld much important mandatory permission!
Our Shri Sudhir Khandwala, flat purchaser with help of other flat purchasers has taken up these issues in interest of flat purchasers who become victims of well planned, deliberate irregularities of this developer. However, the hands of Ravi Group are so high that it is difficult to get justice easily.
Therefore, members of general public are hereby warned to not to purchase flats from this builder considering his dubious track record.
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
i got ceo number and address
Ravi Group Reviews 0
If you represent Ravi Group, take charge of your business profile by claiming it and stay informed about any new reviews or complaints submitted.
Overview of Ravi Group complaint handling
-
Ravi Group Contacts
-
Ravi Group phone numbers+91 226 193 7633+91 226 193 7633Click up if you have successfully reached Ravi Group by calling +91 226 193 7633 phone number 1 1 users reported that they have successfully reached Ravi Group by calling +91 226 193 7633 phone number Click down if you have unsuccessfully reached Ravi Group by calling +91 226 193 7633 phone number 0 0 users reported that they have UNsuccessfully reached Ravi Group by calling +91 226 193 7633 phone number+91 226 193 7644+91 226 193 7644Click up if you have successfully reached Ravi Group by calling +91 226 193 7644 phone number 1 1 users reported that they have successfully reached Ravi Group by calling +91 226 193 7644 phone number Click down if you have unsuccessfully reached Ravi Group by calling +91 226 193 7644 phone number 0 0 users reported that they have UNsuccessfully reached Ravi Group by calling +91 226 193 7644 phone number
-
Ravi Group emailsenquiry@ravigroup.in100%Confidence score: 100%Support
-
Ravi Group address1st Floor, Laxmi Palace, 76, Mathuradas Road, Bhagat Colony, Kandivali West, Mumbai, 400067, India
-
Ravi Group social media
-
Checked and verified by Rachel This contact information is personally checked and verified by the ComplaintsBoard representative. Learn moreJun 13, 2024
Recent comments about Ravi Group company
refund of cancelled flat - gaurav crest
Home Inspectors of California
6 reviews
Green Light Real Estate
4 reviews
Colorado Casa Realtors PMI
5 reviews
JAD Homes
1 review
Gulshan Homz
7 reviews
Our Commitment
We make sure all complaints and reviews are from real people sharing genuine experiences.
We offer easy tools for businesses and reviewers to solve issues together. Learn how it works.
We support and promote the right for reviewers to express their opinions and ideas freely without censorship or restrictions, as long as it's respectful and within our Terms and Conditions, of course ;)
Our rating system is open and honest, ensuring unbiased evaluations for all businesses on the platform. Learn more.
Personal details of reviewers are strictly confidential and hidden from everyone.
Our website is designed to be user-friendly, accessible, and absolutely free for everyone to use.
Our law firm K S Legal Consultants are filing criminal cases against RAVI Group for money invested by clients 10 years ago and not refunding despite refund letters issued. K S Legal consultants. mobile [protected] Email : lawindia.legal@gmail.com Contact person : Sameer B
Please put case on them. Already many cases are going on in rera. Go ahead with that. We have put the case against them too.