State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Tuesday sentenced managing director (MD) of a real-estate firm to two-and-a half years imprisonment for not complying with the orders pronounced by the commission. Passing the orders, the consumer commission said, “The builder – Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited – were directed to handover the possession of the built-up unit, get the sale deed executed and to pay the compensation, in shape of interest to the complainant. They failed to put in appearance despite issuance of directions, hence, MD of the company Sagar Setia is sentenced to imprisonment.”
The commission issued non-bailable warrants to Setia and also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 each on the company and its MD. The complainant, Sanjay Dhiman, a resident of Noida, had purchased a flat in a project launched by the builders in the housing society named – Fashion Technology Park, Mohali. The sale agreement for the said flat was executed between Dhiman and the builder on December 24, 2009. As per the sale agreement, the possession of the flat was to be given by March 31, 2011, and the price of the flat was fixed at Rs 32 lakh.
Setia had paid a sum of Rs 22.40 lakh (which is 70 per cent of the price of the flat) to the builder. However, when the possession of the flat was not given Dhiman filed a case against the builder in the consumer court in 2016.
On August 16, 2016, the consumer commission directed the Chandigarh Overseas Builders to handover the possession of the unit to the complainant within six months and to execute and register the sale deed. The commission had also directed the builder to give a compensation of Rs 1.40 lakh for deficiency in services along with Rs 30,000 as a cost of litigation to the complainant.
As the orders were not complied by the builder the complainant filed an execution petition before the consumer commission. Despite the commission’s directions, Setia did not depose before the commission. The commission stated that Setia has not placed any document on record to show that he was not responsible for non-compliance of the orders passed by the commission. “It was further pointed out by the counsel for the builders that the financial condition of the builder was very tight and efforts will be made to discharge the liability imposed in the near future,” the commission said.