State Commission Sentences Juhu Developer To 2 Years Jail For Flouting 2016 Order

Mumbai: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has passed an execution order against a Juhu based developer, who had failed to abide by the State commission’s orders passed in 2016, of handing over the peaceful possession of the flat. The State commission hence under section 27 of consumer protection Act, has sentenced M F Zamindar to undergo simple imprisonment of 2 years, and further imposing a fine of Rs 10,000.

Order Passed on June 25 by Justice Tavade

The order was passed by the commission’s president, Justice S P Tavade and member V C Premchandani on June 25, after Consumers Welfare Association and homebuyers Nirmala N. Salian and Navinchandra B. Salian had filed an execution application.

The execution proceedings arose from the commission’s August 11, 2016 judgment where Sai Shraddha Constructions, Juhu Koliwada based construction firm was directed to execute and register an agreement for sale in favour of the complainants. The commission in its 2016 orders had directed the developer to accept the balance sale consideration of Rs 28.71 lakh, which was to be paid by the Salian’s and hand over the property. Alternatively, the commission had claimed that if execution of the agreement became impossible for reasons beyond either party’s control, the builder was directed to pay compensation based on the prevailing ready reckoner value of the flat along with 9% annual interest. The commission had then, also awarded Rs 1 lakh towards mental agony and Rs 45,000 as litigation costs.

Homebuyers Filed Execution Application After Non-Compliance

The complainants in their execution application had claimed that despite receiving the commission’s order in January 2017, the builder failed to comply, forcing them to initiate execution proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Meanwhile the complaint in its application said that while the execution proceedings were initiated, the parties had entered into consent terms in October 2023 under which the builder agreed to pay Rs 46 lakh as a full and final settlement. However, the settlement collapsed after the cheques issued by the builder were not realised.

Builder's Ill Health and Citizenship Objections Rejected

The builder contended that he was willing to comply but was unable to do so because of his ill health. He also raised objections regarding the complainants’ citizenship and the validity of the allotment letter and power of attorney.

Rejecting these defences, the commission held that the evidence and the failed consent terms clearly established that the builder had deliberately failed to comply with the 2016 order. It also noted that the original consumer order had already attained finality after the dismissal of the builder’s appeal.

“Accused failed to comply the order passed in consumer complaint in 2016. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence punishable u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for non-compliance of the order,”the order copy reads.

While determining the sentence, the commission observed that nearly a decade had passed since the original order and that the builder had continued to prolong the matter without complying with the directions.

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