The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has sentenced a Chennai-based builder to six months of simple imprisonment for failing to comply with compensation orders to a petitioner. This marks the first instance of such legal action against a builder. The builder, Ajith Thomas Abraham, Managing Director of Southern Investment, refused to pay Rs 1.1 crore compensation to Cherukat Vijayakumar, who had suffered losses due to a fraudulent scheme. Despite repeated chances, the builder failed to fulfil his obligations, leading to imprisonment. This case underscores the commission's commitment to consumer rights and sends a stern message against non-compliance with consumer protection laws.
.png)
In a significant turn of events, the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently made a noteworthy ruling, marking a precedent in consumer protection enforcement. The commission, for the very first time, has handed down a six-month term of simple imprisonment to a builder hailing from Chennai. This action was taken due to the builder's persistent refusal to comply with the commission's directive to compensate a petitioner, who had fallen victim to a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the builder back in 2014. The petitioner, Cherukat Vijayakumar, had suffered financial losses amounting to approximately Rs 50 lakh after the builder, Ajith Thomas Abraham, promised him an apartment in Kozhikode.
The builder, who is the Managing Director of Southern Investment, has been identified as Ajith Thomas Abraham. Following his repeated refusal to adhere to the commission's ruling, which required him to pay Rs 1.1 crore in compensation to Vijayakumar, the builder found himself confined to the Poojappura Central prison. This legal action was spurred by the builder's failure to fulfil his end of the bargain, having collected a substantial sum of Rs 49 lacs from the petitioner under the pretext of providing him with an apartment along with a designated car parking space in Rain Tree Heights Sarovaram, Kozhikode. This arrangement also included an undivided share of 20,965 cents of land, which, unfortunately, never materialized due to the incomplete construction of the promised flat.
Vijayakumar, feeling aggrieved by this situation, took his concerns to the commission, alleging not only an unfair trade practice but also a deficiency in the builder's services. The commission's initial response, on October 31, 2016, was to provide the builder with a clear set of instructions: complete the construction within six months or else reimburse the money, along with an interest rate of 12% per annum.
However, the builder blatantly disregarded these orders, evading compliance even after multiple opportunities were given to him. This led the commission to take a stern stance and issue a warrant against him. When the builder's appeal to the national commission proved futile, with the national commission asserting the builder's liability to adhere to the state commission's ruling, the situation took a more serious turn. The commission then issued a show cause notice, giving the builder a 15-day window to respond before any further action was taken.
During this period, the accused builder appeared before the commission and filed an explanation that essentially mirrored his earlier stance of non-compliance. In the view of the commission, this was a clear indication that the builder was intentionally trying to undermine the proceedings and the authority of the commission.
The builder's assertion that he was financially incapable of reimbursing the money was met with scepticism by the commission, particularly considering his lack of any genuine attempts to rectify the situation. The builder further claimed that similar disputes involving him were already pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), and that the disputed properties were currently under the jurisdiction of the liquidator.
However, the commission, led by a division bench under the guidance of judicial member Ajith Kumar D, found these arguments unconvincing and labelled the builder's actions as an attempt to mock the commission's proceedings. Consequently, the commission invoked Section 72 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 to impose a prison term on the builder, making a powerful statement about the gravity of non-compliance with consumer protection regulations.
In summation, this case highlights the unwavering commitment of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to uphold consumer rights and ensure that justice is served. It serves as a warning to businesses and individuals alike that flouting consumer protection regulations will not go unpunished.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
