Mumbai Consumer Commission Sentences Sterling Constructions Partners To 2 Years In Jail For Order Non-Compliance

Mumbai, August 21, 2026: The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has sentenced two partners of Sterling Constructions, Sameer Zaiuddin Khan and Sarosh Khan, to two years simple imprisonment each and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 each for failing to comply with an earlier consumer commission order, which was passed by the commission in a case filed in the year 2013.

The case was concerning possession of a flat in Kurla. The commission also fined Sterling Constructions Rs 10,000 after holding the construction firm and its partners guilty under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for non-compliance with the commission's order.

The execution application was filed by Gladys D'Souza and Rommel D'Souza, Kurla residents, who had originally approached the consumer commission over a flat in the Sterling Apartments project at Kurla.

Original Consumer Order

In the original consumer complaint, the commission had directed Sterling Constructions to complete construction of Flat No. A-601, measuring 665 sq ft carpet area, obtain the occupancy and building completion certificates and hand over possession to the complainants.

The builders were also directed to pay 21 per cent annual interest on Rs 16,68,940 from the date of filing of the complaint until possession was handed over, besides Rs 1 lakh as compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs 15,000 towards costs.

The complainants subsequently moved the execution application alleging that the builders had failed to comply with the order and sought action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Builder's Defence

During the proceedings, Sterling Constructions' partner Sameer Khan claimed that changes in the demarcation of the plot had resulted in changes to the building plan. He stated that amended plans had been submitted to the civic authorities and that further revisions were made in 2022.

He also claimed that the process of obtaining the necessary commencement and occupancy certificates was pending and there was no wilful disobedience of the consumer commission's order.

However, during cross-examination, Khan admitted that possession of the flat had been given to the applicants but that an occupancy certificate had not been obtained. The commission observed that the original order had not been fully complied with.

Also Watch:

Commission Awards Punishment

“The accused miserably failed to comply the order and the fact is admitted even in the cross examination of the accused. Therefore, the complainant succeeded to prove that accused has committed the offence punishable u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 beyond the reasonable doubt. We had given an opportunity to the complainant as well as the accused to argue on the point of quantum of punishment, to which the complainant’s advocate had sought for maximum punishment as prescribed under section 27 of the Act (whereas) the accused counsel argued that the compliances of the order was beyond its control, and hence there was not deliberate attempt for non-compliance of the order on the part of the accused. Hence the lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence or penalty.16. After hearing both the sides, we come to the conclusion that the accused has taken a long time for compliance of the order, as also failed to comply the order till this date….” maintained the commission, while awarding punishment to the developers.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/