RUPJI CONSTRUCTIONS, Vs. SANTOSH S. MAYEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This set of 19 Execution Appeals, under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by a Real Estate Developer, namely, M/s Rupji Constructions, and its Partner, the Opposite Parties in the Complaints, is directed against the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in Execution Applications No. EA/16/36 to EA/16/54. By the impugned order, the State Commission has convicted and sentenced Appellant No.1, namely, Madhukar Meghashyam Rupji, one of the Partners of the afore-named Firm, to suffer imprisonment till final order dated 10.03.2016, passed by it in the Complaints, filed by the Respondents/Complainants, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants in not delivering the possession of the flats, booked by them, by the stipulated time, is complied with by the Appellants, with a cap of maximum imprisonment of three years, as there was deliberate disobedience on the part of the Appellants in complying with the said order. However, instead of passing order on similar lines in respect of Appellant No.2, namely, Tejal Madhukar Rupji, another Partner of the said Firm, in order to facilitate compliance with the said final order passed in the Complaint, the State Commission has granted him 7 days' time to do the needful, failing which further orders as regards award of sentence to him was to be passed on the next date. Accordingly, on executing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/-, the said Appellant has been directed to be released, with a direction to remain present on each and every date of hearing in the said cases.

(2.) It may be noted at this juncture itself, that against the substantive final order dated 10.03.2016, passed by the State Commission in the Complaints, preferred by the Complainants, on an earlier occasion, the Appellants had filed First Appeals before this Commission. Vide our order dated 18.10.2016, the said Appeals were dismissed and the said order has, thus, attained finality insofar as this Commission is concerned. In view of the said order, we refrain from burdening this order by narrating the case of the Complainants, leading to the filing of the Complaints. It would suffice to note that despite having paid almost the entire sale consideration, vacant and peaceful possession of the flats in question was not delivered to the Complainants by the stipulated time, i.e. May, 2010. Rather, extra amounts were being demanded by the Appellants from them over and above the agreed sale consideration towards escalation in cost of construction.

(3.) Upon contest, the State Commission, vide its order dated 10.03.2016, partly allowed the Complaints, inter alia, directed the Appellants to jointly and severally hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the flats to the Complainants, upon accepting balance consideration amount from them as per the Schedule, indicated in the said order, by obtaining the Occupancy Certificate, within a period of 90 days from the date of the said order. Further, the Appellants were also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to each of the Complainants, together with litigation costs, quantified at Rs. 15,000/- each.