SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 8183

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA
S.P. Tavade, President, Vijay C. Premchandani, Member
Mr. Sunil S Vaiti – Appellant
Versus
M/s Sterling Constructions – Respondent
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. SC/27/EA/17/130 | SC/27/CC/13/349



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Pawar
For the Respondents: Sajira Jondhale, U.B. Wavikar, Baliram Kamble

Non-compliance with a Consumer Commission's order to provide lawful possession, specifically the failure to obtain an Occupation Certificate, constitutes a punishable offence under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, warranting fines and imprisonment.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection - Execution of Order - Non-compliance with directions to hand over possession and obtain Occupation Certificate - Handing over possession without a valid Occupation Certificate does not constitute lawful possession and amounts to willful disobedience of the Commission's order. (Para 10, 11)

(B) Penalties - Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Failure to comply with order - Where the accused fails to establish that non-compliance was beyond their control, the Commission is justified in awarding fines and imprisonment to the company and its partners. (Para 13, 16)

Issues: Whether the accused failed to comply with the order passed in the original consumer complaint and is liable for punishment under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and facts regarding the non-compliance of the original consumer complaint order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. determination of willful disobedience based on the failure to provide lawful possession and occupation certificate. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. establishing guilt under section 27 of the consumer protection act due to failure to comply with the order. (Para 12 , 13)
4. determination of the quantum of punishment for non-compliance with the commission's directions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

FINAL ORDER

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.349/2013 (CC/15/349).

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- 701, 7th floor, admeasuring 537 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.14,50,000/- 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.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs 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.16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand 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 applicants contended in the application that the respondent/accused has not complied the order. Therefore, the present Execution Application is filed.

4. The applicants have 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 complainants 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. 349/2013 (CC/15/349)? Negative
2 Whether the ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top