2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 8182
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA
S.P. Tavade, President, Vijay C. Premchandani, Member
Ms Rose Mitchell – Appellant
Versus
M/s Sterling Constructions – Respondent
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. SC/27/EA/17/129 IN SC/27/CC/13/347
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J.B. Gai
For the Respondents: Sajira Jondhale, U.B. Wavikar, Baliram Kamble
Non-compliance with a consumer commission's order to hand over lawful possession (including obtaining an Occupation Certificate) attracts penal consequences under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as mere physical possession without legal documentation does not constitute full compliance.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection - Execution of Order - Non-compliance with directions to hand over possession and obtain Occupation Certificate - Failure to provide lawful possession, despite physical handover, constitutes willful disobedience of the Commission's order. (Para 11)
(B) Penalties - Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Non-compliance - Imposition of fine and imprisonment for failure to execute the order of the Commission when the accused fails to establish that compliance was beyond their control. (Para 16)
Issues: Whether the accused failed to comply with the order passed in the original consumer complaint and whether they are guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and background of the execution application for non-compliance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. determination of non-compliance regarding the failure to provide lawful possession and occupation certificate. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. establishing guilt for willful disobedience under section 27 of the consumer protection act. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. determination of appropriate penal consequences for non-compliance of the commission's order. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
FINAL ORDER
(Dt. 06/08/2026)
Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member
1. The present execution application is filed by the applicants (original complainants) u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for non-compliance of the order passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint no.347/2013 (CC/15/347).
Facts of the application:-
2. The applicants contended that in the original complaint following impugned order is passed:-
1.Consumer complaint is partly allowed with costs quantified at Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) payable to the complainants by the opponents.
2. Opponents are guilty of deficiency in service for not handing over possession of the flat to the complainants.
3. Opponents are directed to complete the construction of said flat No.A- 202, 2nd floor, admeasuring 418 sq.ft. carpet area in the residential project “Sterling Apartments” at Survey No.292(Part), CTS No.406- 1A(pt.), 407 and 407-1 of village Kurla of Mumbai Suburban District in all respects and obtain occupancy certificate and building completion certificate and hand over possession to the complainants within four months from the date of payment of remaining consideration i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- plus Rs.25,000/- as deposit for payment of expenses and Rs.25,000/- as deposit for payment towards share money and entrance fee [Total : Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only)]. If the opponents refused to accept the amount, then complainants should deposit the amount in this Commission under intimation to the opponents and from that date within four months possession should be handed over to the complainants.
4. Opponents are further directed to pay interest @ 21% p.a. on the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only) from the date of filing of complaint i.e.30/08/2013 till handing over possession of the said flat to the complainants.
5. Opponents are also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation on account of physical and mental harassment suffered by the complainants.
3. The applicant contended in the application that the respondent/accused has not complied the order. Therefore, the present Execution Application is filed.
4. The applicant has prayed that the accused may be dealt and punished according to the provisions of section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
5. The present application was verified and the process was issued against the accused u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The accused appeared. The plea of the accused is recorded. The accused has pleaded not guilty of the offence alleged against them.
6. The complainant filed their evidence by way of affidavit in examination in chief and the accused took the cross examination of the complainant. The statement of the accused u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. The accused examined himself in their defence and filed their affidavit in examination in chief. The complainant took the cross examination of the accused.
7. Both the sides have argued the present Execution Application. After perusal of the evidence placed on record, impugned order passed in the original consumer complaint and after hearing the final argument the following points are arisen for the determination as mentioned herein under:-
| Sr.no. | Points | Answer |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Whether the accused has complied the order passed in the original consumer complaint no. 347/2013 (CC/15/347)? | Negative |
| 2 | Whether the accused is guilty for the offence alleged u/sec.27 of Consumer Protection A | |