22 hrs ago
Mumbai Developer Ordered To Compensate Flat Owners For Area Shortfall
Two family members bought flats from a Mumbai developer.
Their agreements promised each flat would have 560 square feet of carpet area.
After moving in, a registered architect measured the flats and found only 518.46 square feet.
The buyers said they had therefore paid for space they did not receive.
A consumer commission agreed that this was a service failure.
It ordered the developer to pay ₹6.64 lakh to each buyer, plus interest and additional compensation.
The developer argued that the buyers were landowners and that their measurements and claims were wrong.
The commission rejected those arguments and also addressed concerns about building approvals and the housing society.
The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ordered developer Chinnappan Anthony to pay ₹6,64,640 to each of two flat owners.
The compensation concerns a shortfall of 41.54 square feet in flats promised to have 560 square feet of carpet area.
The developer must also pay nine per cent interest, ₹50,000 for mental agony, and ₹25,000 in litigation costs to each complainant.
The Commission rejected the developer’s claims that the complainants were landowners rather than consumers and that the complaints were time-barred.
The complaints also alleged incomplete occupancy certification, failure to form a housing society, and conversion of promised common areas into flats or offices.
- Who
- Flat owners Sujt Murleedharan Nair and T. Muraleedharan Nair, and developer Chinnappan Anthony of M/s Milan Builders and Developers.
- What
- The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ordered compensation for delivering less carpet area than promised.
- Where
- The dispute concerns Flat Nos. 202 and 302 in Shree Balaji Ashirwad, Malad West, Mumbai; the complainants reside in Kandivali.
- When
- The order was passed on September 4, 2026; the flats were booked in January 2016 and handed over in November 2016.
- Why
- A registered architect found that each flat measured 518.46 square feet instead of the promised 560 square feet, while the complainants also alleged unresolved building and society-related deficiencies.
Flat Owners and Commission
Developer
Carpet-area shortfall
Flat Owners and Commission
The flat owners relied on a registered architect’s measurement showing 518.46 square feet instead of the agreed 560 square feet. The Commission said reducing the area without consent or a corresponding price reduction was a deficiency in service.
Developer
The developer disputed the architect’s measurement and called the claim of deficient area false.
Consumer status
Flat Owners and Commission
The Commission held that landowners receiving constructed apartments under a development arrangement can be consumers regarding construction deficiencies and statutory non-compliance.
Developer
The developer argued that the Nairs were landowners involved in a development arrangement rather than consumers.
Other contractual disputes
Flat Owners and Commission
The complainants alleged incomplete occupancy certification, failure to form a cooperative housing society, and conversion of promised common areas into offices and flats.
Developer
The developer cited alleged fraud involving a separate memorandum of understanding, outstanding obligations, and other disputes, which the Commission said should be pursued before a civil court.
Key facts
- Developer
- Chinnappan Anthony, proprietor of M/s Milan Builders and Developers
- Compensation per owner
- ₹6,64,640
- Promised carpet area
- 560 square feet per flat
- Measured carpet area
- 518.46 square feet per flat
- Area shortfall
- 41.54 square feet per flat
- Additional payments
- Nine per cent interest, ₹50,000 for mental agony, and ₹25,000 in litigation costs per complainant
- Commission order date
- September 4, 2026
Quotes
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
The consumer commission bench that adjudicated the complaints against the developer
“It is clear that the developer is guilty of deficiency (in services),”
freepressjournal.in
Sources
Related news
Mumbai Builder Faces ₹6 Crore Penalty Over Missing Occupation Certificate
Builder Ordered to Provide Promised Free Parking Space
Kerala Builder Ordered to Pay for Unfit House
Dubai Buyer Wins Full Refund Dispute With Mumbai Builder
Bombay High Court Stays BMC Action at Rustomjee Crown
Haryana builder ordered to hand over flat after eight-year delay
ITAT Clarifies Holding Period Rules for Redeveloped Flats
BRICS Summit to Prioritise National Currencies, NDB Capital Role
Pinkie Roshan Buys Two Unbuilt Mumbai Luxury Apartments
Shailaja Kamat’s Solo Show Traces India’s Changing Urban Landscapes
Minister Defends Marathi Appeal to Sanjay Dutt at Event
