Mumbai: The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has sentenced the proprietress of a Malad-based construction firm, Kiran Constructions, for failing to comply with orders passed by the Commission in 2015.
The Commission has sentenced the senior citizen to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000. The order was passed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, which empowers the Commission to award punishment for non-compliance.
Case Background
The order was delivered by the bench presided over by Justice S.P. Tavade and member Vijay C. Premchandani on an execution application filed by the complainant, Anthony Alfred Tellis, a resident of Malad, against Kiran Constructions and its proprietress, Vilasini N. Naik.
The application stated that the SCDRC’s 2015 order had directed Naik to pay Rs 55 lakh as compensation to Tellis for failing to hand over possession of a flat he had booked in 1984.
Flat Booking and Payment Details
According to case details, Tellis, an electrician working in Kuwait, was seeking residential accommodation in Mumbai, his permanent place of residence. He approached Kiran Constructions, and a deal was finalized for a 545 sq. ft. flat.
An agreement to sell was executed on August 3, 1994, for a total consideration of Rs 6.36 lakh, of which Rs 2 lakh was to be paid in cash. Tellis paid Rs 3.86 lakh by cheque and Rs 2 lakh in cash to the developer. The possession of the flat was to be handed over by October 31, 1994.
Failure to Deliver Flat and Refund
Tellis waited for about four years, but the developer neither delivered the flat nor refunded the amount. Instead, the developer issued a written assurance promising to refund the money and provided three post-dated cheques between April and December 1999 amounting to Rs 13 lakh.
However, all the cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Tellis subsequently issued a legal notice to the developer, but in their reply, the developer accused him of forcibly recovering the cheques. Tellis alleged deficiency in service on the part of the developer and sought the Commission’s intervention for relief and possession of the flat.
Execution Application Filed
After the developer failed to comply with the SCDRC’s 2015 order, Tellis filed an execution application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, requesting that proceedings be initiated against the accused and appropriate punishment be imposed.
Accused’s Claim and Commission Verdict
“The accused has simply stated that a false complaint has been filed against her. In her response, Vilasini claimed that she was not handling the day-to-day affairs of the firm and that her husband was managing the business. Hence, she claimed ignorance of the transaction and the Commission’s order. She further stated that she is a senior citizen suffering from multiple health issues and has no source of income to maintain her daily routine,” Vilasini’s say said.
Also Watch:
After examining the evidence, the Commission observed: “Considering the aspects pertaining to the quantum of punishment as well as the fact that the accused is guilty of the offence, we conclude that the accused was given sufficient opportunity to comply with the order. The complainant has waited for a long time and has spent more than 10 years to obtain relief from the Commission, yet the accused has failed to comply with the said order. Therefore, there is no reason to show leniency to the accused. Hence, we pass the following order under Section 255(2) of the CrPC,” the order stated.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
