Arrest warrants for builder, son who failed to hand over 19 flats in Mumbai

A city builder and his son face possible jail terms for failing to hand over 19 flats to their buyers despite receiving specific orders to that effect from the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission in March.

A city builder and his son face possible jail terms for failing to hand over 19 flats to their buyers despite receiving specific orders to that effect from the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission in March.

On November 29, the commission issued warrants to the head of Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg police station to arrest Madhukar Rupji and his son Tejal, who are partners in Rupji Constructions. (HT)

On November 29, the commission issued warrants to the head of Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg police station to arrest Madhukar Rupji and his son Tejal, who are partners in Rupji Constructions.

The commission acted on a complaint filed by Lalbaug resident Santosh Mayekar and others, who said that though they had paid substantial sums for the flats they booked, the construction firm had failed to hand over possession of the flats.

Read: Mumbai: 95 criminal cases against real estate developers in two years

In March 2016, the commission ordered Rupji Construction to hand over possession of the flats within 90 days, after receiving outstanding payments from the buyers.

The firm had apparently refused to hand over possession of flats in Raigad Nagar Housing Society, Sewri, to 19 complainants after they declined to pay additional sums the company had demanded. Rupji Construction maintained that the execution of the project had been delayed by the intervention of statutory authorities, because of which costs had escalated.

A bench comprising commission president AP Bhangale and member Narendra Kawde, however, said that the buyers could not be penalised for the delay. Noting that they had already paid substantial sums for the flats but were yet to get possession, the commission ordered the construction firm to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation and an additional Rs 15,000 towards litigation costs to each to the 19 complainants.

The complainants filed execution applications before the commission after the firm failed to comply with the March 2016 order within the stipulated 90-day period. Acting on the application, the commission issued bailable warrants for arrest of the father and son under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which deals with failure to comply with the order of a consumer commission. Penalties under this section include one month to three years imprisonment, a fine of between Rs 2,000 and Rs 10,000, or both.