Maharashtra State Consumer Commission Convicts Sterling Constructions Partners For Non-Compliance Of Flat Possession Orders
The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, comprising Justice S.P. Tavade (President) and Vijay C. Premchandani (Member), has convicted the partners of M/s Sterling Constructions for failing to comply with orders passed in five separate consumer complaints concerning flats in its “Sterling Apartments” project at Kurla, Mumbai.
The Commission found the builder and its partners guilty under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, after finding that the directions contained in the original consumer orders remained unfulfilled despite the passage of several years. The five execution applications were decided on August 6, 2026.
Facts
The proceedings arose from five consumer complaints filed in relation to the residential project “Sterling Apartments” at Kurla. The original complaints had been partly allowed by the Commission, which held Sterling Constructions guilty of deficiency in service for failing to hand over possession of the respective flats.
The builder had been directed to complete construction, obtain the Occupancy Certificate and Building Completion Certificate, and hand over possession to the complainants within the stipulated period after payment of the remaining consideration. The original orders also provided for interest and compensation to the complainants.
The five execution proceedings—EA-17-125, EA-17-127, EA-17-128, EA-17-129 and EA-17-130—arose from Consumer Complaint Nos. 348/2013, 345/2013, 350/2013, 347/2013 and 349/2013, respectively, and were filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging non-compliance with the original orders.
Contentions Of The Parties
The partners of Sterling Constructions, Sameer Ziaudddin Khan and Sarosh Khan, contended that the delay in complying with the orders was attributable to circumstances beyond their control.
Among other things, the builder relied upon changes in the demarcation of the plot, amendments to the building plans, regulatory changes and the pendency of statutory approvals. In one matter, it was contended that a dispute involving occupants on a portion of the plot had delayed the approval process, while revised plans had subsequently been submitted and a Fire NOC obtained.
In another matter, the builder stated that the plans had been amended following changes in the plot demarcation and that the revised plans had been submitted for obtaining the necessary Commencement Certificate and Occupation Certificate. It was therefore argued that there was no wilful disobedience of the orders.
Commission's Observations
The Commission rejected the defence.
In each of the five execution proceedings, the Commission answered in the negative the question whether the original consumer order had been complied with, and in the affirmative the question whether the accused were guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the 1986 Act.
The Commission noted that the builder had taken a long time to comply with the original directions and had still failed to do so. In the proceedings, the builder's own evidence established that the Occupation Certificate had not been obtained.
The Commission also noted that after obtaining the full consideration from the flat purchasers, the builder had failed to complete the construction and obtain the Occupation Certificate as directed. In one of the matters, the Commission observed that the defence taken by the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding regulatory changes was inconsistent with the defence taken in evidence and therefore could not be accepted.
The Commission ultimately held that the accused had failed to establish that compliance with the orders was beyond their control.
Conviction And Sentence
Allowing the five execution applications, the Commission convicted Sterling Constructions and its partners under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In EA-17-125, Sterling Constructions was fined ₹10,000, while its partners Sameer Ziaudddin Khan and Sarosh Khan were sentenced to three years' simple imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹10,000 each.
In the other four execution applications—EA-17-127, EA-17-128, EA-17-129 and EA-17-130—the company was fined ₹10,000 in each case, while the two partners were sentenced to two years' simple imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹10,000 each.
The Commission passed no order as to costs in the execution proceedings.
Case Details
Case Titles: Avinash Butala & Ors. v. M/s Sterling Constructions & Ors.; Gladys D'Souza & Anr. v. M/s Sterling Constructions & Ors.; Sheetal Shriniwas Gandhi & Anr. v. M/s Sterling Constructions & Ors.; Rose Mitchell v. M/s Sterling Constructions & Ors.; Sunil Sadanand Vaiti & Anr. v. M/s Sterling Constructions & Ors.
Case Nos.: SC/27/EA/17/125, SC/27/EA/17/127, SC/27/EA/17/128, SC/27/EA/17/129 and SC/27/EA/17/130
Advocates/Representatives: Advocate Ajay Pawar and Mr. J.B. Gai appeared for the respective applicants; Advocate Sajira Jondhale, instructed by Advocate U.B. Wavikar, along with Advocate Baliram Kamble, appeared for the respondents.