Builders, traders and service providers often take undue advantage to exploit consumers when the judiciary shows some leniency. Tough stand adopted by of the Maharashtra State Commission helped a consumer to vindicate his rights.
Manherlal Shah had booked a flat in a housing project called Emrald Court being developed by Siddhivinayak Builders, run by a father-son duo Nitin and Rohan Mehta. Shah paid the total consideration of Rs 19 lakh. The sale agreement dated August 18, 1997, was registered on August 30, 1997, by paying stamp duty of Rs 1.1 lakh and registration charges of Rs 17,510. Though the building was ready for occupation, the builder refused to hand over possession of the flat, and tried to extort further money. The builder threatened to terminate the agreement and revoke the allotment. When he did so, Shah challenged the cancellation by filled a complaint before the Maharashtra State Commission.
The State Commission observed Shah had paid the entire consideration as per the agreement and there was no default on his part. It concluded the termination of the agreement by the builder was illegal and held it to be a deficiency in service. Accordingly, by its order of February 2, 2012, the bench of Khanzode and Narendra Kawde directed the builder to hand over possession of the flat in habitable condition after obtaining the occupation certificate. In addition compensation of Rs 1 lakh and costs of Rs 10,000 were also awarded.
The Commission refused to accept the builder's excuses. The builder, then, tried to delay the execution by seeking time to comply with the order by executing a rectification deed. The Commission refused to grant any time, observing that once an order has attained finality, it has to be obeyed.
In a significant ruling delivered on June 13, 2016 by Justice A P Bhangale for the Bench along with Narendra Kawde, the State Commission deprecated the tendency of the builders and developers in duping innocent flat purchasers by creating third-party interest in the premises to avoid compliance of statutory obligations. Adopting a tough stand, the Commission sentenced Nitin Mehta to civil imprisonment for three years or till such time as he complied with the order.
The builder sought suspension of the sentence on furnishing bail, so that he could challenge the sentence of imprisonment. The Commission refused to show any leniency, as it would send a wrong signal to those who disobey orders of consumer fora and deprive consumers of their legal right.
The panicky Nitin Mehta rushed to the Bombay High Court to avoid going to jail. He undertook to settle Shah's grievance, either by putting him in possession of the flat or making payment. The High Court granted a reprieve of 10 days on bail furnishing a bond of Rs 1 lakh along with two sureties of the same amount. The High Court held Mehta would have to face the sentence in case he did not comply with the order and settle the matter with Shah within this period of 10 days.
Some try to wear out the consumer by adopting dilatory tactics. When the court is prompt and stern, they will not have the temerity to harass consumers and deprive them of getting the benefit of the award passed in their favour.
The author is a consumer activist
Manherlal Shah had booked a flat in a housing project called Emrald Court being developed by Siddhivinayak Builders, run by a father-son duo Nitin and Rohan Mehta. Shah paid the total consideration of Rs 19 lakh. The sale agreement dated August 18, 1997, was registered on August 30, 1997, by paying stamp duty of Rs 1.1 lakh and registration charges of Rs 17,510. Though the building was ready for occupation, the builder refused to hand over possession of the flat, and tried to extort further money. The builder threatened to terminate the agreement and revoke the allotment. When he did so, Shah challenged the cancellation by filled a complaint before the Maharashtra State Commission.
The State Commission observed Shah had paid the entire consideration as per the agreement and there was no default on his part. It concluded the termination of the agreement by the builder was illegal and held it to be a deficiency in service. Accordingly, by its order of February 2, 2012, the bench of Khanzode and Narendra Kawde directed the builder to hand over possession of the flat in habitable condition after obtaining the occupation certificate. In addition compensation of Rs 1 lakh and costs of Rs 10,000 were also awarded.
Also Read
Since the builder failed to comply with the order, Shah initiated execution proceedings for penal action for disobedience of the order. The builder contested the proceedings, saying he was unable to give possession as he had sold Shah's flat to a third party.
The Commission refused to accept the builder's excuses. The builder, then, tried to delay the execution by seeking time to comply with the order by executing a rectification deed. The Commission refused to grant any time, observing that once an order has attained finality, it has to be obeyed.
In a significant ruling delivered on June 13, 2016 by Justice A P Bhangale for the Bench along with Narendra Kawde, the State Commission deprecated the tendency of the builders and developers in duping innocent flat purchasers by creating third-party interest in the premises to avoid compliance of statutory obligations. Adopting a tough stand, the Commission sentenced Nitin Mehta to civil imprisonment for three years or till such time as he complied with the order.
The builder sought suspension of the sentence on furnishing bail, so that he could challenge the sentence of imprisonment. The Commission refused to show any leniency, as it would send a wrong signal to those who disobey orders of consumer fora and deprive consumers of their legal right.
The panicky Nitin Mehta rushed to the Bombay High Court to avoid going to jail. He undertook to settle Shah's grievance, either by putting him in possession of the flat or making payment. The High Court granted a reprieve of 10 days on bail furnishing a bond of Rs 1 lakh along with two sureties of the same amount. The High Court held Mehta would have to face the sentence in case he did not comply with the order and settle the matter with Shah within this period of 10 days.
Some try to wear out the consumer by adopting dilatory tactics. When the court is prompt and stern, they will not have the temerity to harass consumers and deprive them of getting the benefit of the award passed in their favour.
The author is a consumer activist