NAGPUR: Delivering a strong message regarding compliance with consumer court rulings, the Nagpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently sentenced a local builder to two years of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹10,000 for willfully disobeying a 2016 decision. Under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the ruling found the builder guilty of systematically delaying compensation for more than nine years.
The case originated in 2015 when a consumer lodged a complaint against a Jaripatka-based builder for failing to deliver property and providing inadequate service. On February 4, 2016, the commission ordered the builder to refund ₹5 lakh with 12% annual interest from September 6, 2013, pay ₹10,000 for mental and physical distress, and cover ₹5,000 in litigation costs, all within 30 days. Despite receiving the formal order on February 27, 2016, the builder did not comply.
The bench, comprising judges Sachin Shimpi, Balkrushna Chaudhari, and Sheetal Petkar, observed, “The respondent deliberately disobeyed the commission’s ruling, fully aware of its terms.” The panel noted that the refund was only made on May 31, 2024, nearly a decade later, through a demand draft of ₹5 lakh, excluding any interest or compensation owed. The complainant asserted there was still a remaining balance of ₹6.8 lakh as per the 2016 order.
The builder’s attorney claimed the principal amount was settled and argued there was no intentional contempt, suggesting the complainant had defaulted under the original contract. However, this defense was dismissed by the commission, which highlighted the builder’s admission during cross-examination that he sold the disputed flat to a third party in 2017 and intentionally delayed payment to the complainant.
“The accused’s actions clearly exhibit contempt for the commission’s order,” the bench stated, asserting that “national legal obligations cannot be compromised for financial convenience.” The commission reiterated the necessity for swift execution of summary proceedings under Section 27 to protect consumer rights, referencing previous cases such as Dr. Ravi Marathe vs. Balasaheb Patil (2019) and Vinod Sharma vs. Jayant Thorve (2025).
Finding the builder guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the commission ordered a two-year sentence of simple imprisonment along with a ₹10,000 fine. Should he fail to pay the fine, an additional 15 days of imprisonment would apply. His bail bonds were revoked, and free certified copies of the ruling were provided to both parties.
