Order to arrest officials of a Construction Company for failing to hand over flat or make refunds, upheld

National  Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: While dismissing an execution appeal filed by a construction company, NCDRC upheld the order of the Punjab State Consumer Commission, vide which the Commission had directed arrest of the officials of the Construction Company for failing to hand over flats or make refunds on time. Earlier, in this case of failure of Construction Company in delivering the flat on time or to refund the amount to the complainants, the State Commission directed the Company to refund the amount along with Rs. 25, 000 as cost of litigation. Thereafter, an execution application was filed in the matter before State Commission. While hearing the execution application, State Commission declared the director and general manager of the company as proclaimed offenders as in spite of the proclamation published against them under Section 82 CrPC, they did not appear before the State Commission. State Commission also rejected a miscellaneous application in which the appellants stated that they should be allowed to settle the entire amount awarded against them by way of allotment of flat, equivalent to the value of the amount awarded, or they should be allowed to pay the decree amount in monthly instalments of Rs. 50,000 each, till payment of the entire amount. State Commission noted that the offer so made in the application was not acceptable to the complainants.

After perusal of material on record and hearing both the parties, the National Commission noted, “Under the Consumer Protection Act, the compliance of the order passed by the consumer fora is made by following procedure under Section 25 or Section 27 of the said Act. It is not for the judgement-debtor to choose, which manner of execution is to be followed. It was the duty of the judgment-debtor, therefore, to put in appearance before the State Commission and state their view point before them. There is no merit in the present appeal therefore, and the same is ordered to be dismissed in limine.” [Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd. v. Inderdeep Singh, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1421, decided on October 5, 2016]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 × one =