Juhu Developer Sentenced to Two Years in Jail Over Unfulfilled 2016 Flat Agreement
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) sentenced Juhu-based developer M F Zamindar to two years of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on June 25. The ruling was issued after Zamindar failed to comply with a 2016 order directing him to hand over the peaceful possession of a flat to homebuyers in Juhu.
The order was passed by SCDRC President Justice S P Tavade and member V C Premchandani. It came in response to an execution application filed by the Consumers Welfare Association alongside homebuyers Nirmala N. Salian and Navinchandra B. Salian.
The legal proceedings stem from an August 11, 2016 judgment. In that decision, the commission directed Sai Shraddha Constructions, a construction firm based in Juhu Koliwada, to execute and register an agreement for sale in favour of the Salians. The homebuyers were directed to pay the remaining balance of Rs 28.71 lakh, after which the developer was to hand over the property.
In the event that executing the agreement became impossible due to reasons beyond either party's control, the 2016 order required the builder to pay compensation based on the prevailing ready reckoner value of the flat, along with 9% annual interest. The developer was also ordered to pay Rs 1 lakh for mental agony and Rs 45,000 for litigation costs.
Although the builder received the commission's order in January 2017, he failed to comply. This prompted the homebuyers to file an execution application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
While these proceedings were ongoing, the parties agreed to consent terms in October 2023, where the builder promised to pay Rs 46 lakh as a final settlement. However, the settlement fell through when the cheques issued by the builder were not realised.
Zamindar argued that ill health prevented his compliance and raised objections regarding the complainants' citizenship, the allotment letter, and the power of attorney. The commission rejected these defences, noting that the builder's appeal had already been dismissed and the original order had attained finality. The commission concluded that the builder had deliberately prolonged the matter for nearly a decade.
