Back
Maharashtra State Consumer Commission Convicts Partners For Non-Compliance Of Flat Orders
The , presided over by Justice S.P. Tavade (President) and Member Vijay C. Premchandani, has convicted the partners of for with orders passed in five separate consumer complaints concerning the "Sterling Apartments" project at Kurla, Mumbai. The builder and its partners — Sameer Ziaudddin Khan and Sarosh Khan — were found guilty under , after the Commission concluded that they had to hand over possession of flats and obtain the .
The Case: A Long Wait for Possession
The proceedings arose from five execution applications filed by homebuyers who had booked flats in the "Sterling Apartments" project. The original complaints — Consumer Complaint Nos. 345/2013, 347/2013, 348/2013, 349/2013 and 350/2013 — were partly allowed by the Commission, which held guilty of for failing to deliver possession. In each case, the builder was directed to complete construction, obtain both the and the , and hand over possession within four months after payment of the remaining consideration. Interest at 21% per annum and compensation for mental harassment were also ordered. Despite these clear directions, the builder failed to fulfil its obligations, prompting the homebuyers to file execution applications under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking punishment for non-compliance.
The judgment in Execution Application EA-17-130, concerning Sunil Sadanand Vaiti and Kirti Sunil Vaiti, is representative of the Commission's reasoning across all five matters.
Arguments: Builder Blames Regulatory Delays, Commission Rejects Defence
The builder partners contended that the delay in complying with the orders was attributable to circumstances beyond their control. They pointed to changes in plot demarcation, amendments to building plans, and regulatory changes that had delayed statutory approvals. In one matter, they stated that a dispute involving occupants on a portion of the plot had stalled the approval process, though revised plans had subsequently been submitted and a Fire NOC obtained.
During , the partners admitted that possession of the flat had been handed over but acknowledged that no had been obtained. The defence changed its stance at different stages — in one instance claiming that regulatory changes were responsible, and in another stating that they would complete the building after obtaining a from the authorities.
The complainants argued that despite the passage of several years and the fact that full consideration had been paid, the builder had willfully and deliberately disobeyed the original order by failing to provide lawful possession backed by the required certificates.
Legal Analysis: Wilful Non-Compliance Established
The Commission, presided over by Justice S.P. Tavade (President) and Vijay C. Premchandani (Member), carefully examined the evidence and the contradictory defences raised by the builder. It noted that the builder's own evidence established that after receiving the full purchase amount, it had failed to complete construction and obtain the as directed. The defence taken under — citing regulatory changes — was inconsistent with the defence offered in evidence and could not be accepted.
The Commission observed that the builder had taken a long time to comply with the original directions and had still not done so. It held that the builder failed to establish that compliance was beyond its control. Accordingly, the Commission answered in the negative the question of whether the original consumer order had been complied with, and in the affirmative the question of whether the accused were guilty under Section 27.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"The accused after obtaining the full consideration amount of the flat, not bothered to complete the construction and obtain the Occupation Certificate and failed to hand over possession of the flat."
"The defence is taken by the accused u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. pertaining to the change in Regulation. All NOC and O.C. is not obtained. On the other hand, contrary defence is taken in Evidence that the Accused will complete the building after obtaining from the Authority. Hence, the defence cannot be considered."
"The accused miserably failed to comply the order and the said fact is admitted even in the cross examination of the accused."
"The accused failed to establish that the compliances of the order was ."
The Verdict: Two-Year Imprisonment and Fine
Allowing the execution applications, the Commission passed a stern order. In EA-17-130, was fined ₹10,000, while its partners Sameer Ziaudddin Khan and Sarosh Khan were sentenced to two years of , along with a fine of ₹10,000 each. In EA-17-125, the partners received a three-year sentence, while in the remaining matters — EA-17-127, EA-17-128 and EA-17-129 — the sentence was two years. The company was fined ₹10,000 in each case.
The Commission passed no order as to costs.
The conviction serves as a strong warning to builders who fail to comply with consumer forum orders, reinforcing that can lead to imprisonment under the consumer protection framework.
