Thane Consumer Commission Holds Navi Mumbai Housing Society Guilty Of Service Lapses, Awards ₹80,000 To Members

On September 28, 2026, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Thane ruled in favor of a Navi Mumbai housing cooperative society, finding it guilty of poor service and unfair trade practices. The commission awarded the society's members a total of ₹80,000 in compensation for various lapses, including inadequate security, incorrect maintenance bills, non-functional CCTV footage, and delayed major repairs.

Rama Gupta and her son Amit Kumar Gupta, owners of Flat No. B-603 in the society, filed the complaint against the society. They alleged that the society had collected around ₹2 crore from members for major repairs, charging ₹1.42 lakh to their flat, despite the repairs remaining incomplete for years. This led to seepage and structural damage in their flat. The commission found that the society had not produced documents proving the completion of repairs and failed to disclose the true cost of the sinking fund.

Regarding the security agency, the commission noted that while Perfect Rescue Force Private Limited held a license, the guards were actually appointed by a different agency, Perfect Facilities. This appointment was deemed unlawful.

As for the maintenance bills, the commission pointed out a discrepancy where the sinking fund calculated at ₹0.16 per square foot amounted to ₹504, but the bill reflected ₹525. They also found that the society had failed to provide the CCTV footage requested by the complainants, despite a board meeting admission that the CCTV system was non-functional. The commission held that the society's failure to provide the footage breached its duty.

The society had contested the complaint, arguing it was not maintainable, barred by limitation, and that the complainants were not consumers of the society. They also claimed that the major repair work was completed in 2017, and that there was no deficiency on their part. However, the commission rejected these objections, holding that members have a consumer-provider relationship with the cooperative society and that grievances concerning common facilities and services are an ongoing cause of action.

The commission emphasized that a housing society is responsible for providing common services to its members and that safety, security, and structural repairs are not to be neglected.