Dhananjay Jog
The reader may recall the case of The Absconding Builder, reported in this paper on August 6, 2023. A builder deceived 40 buyers who had trusted him and booked flats in his project. He abandoned the construction midway and disappeared. Fortunately, the Goa State Consumer Commission stepped in and helped them secure justice.
Following the judgment on October 27, 2022, several other consumers in similar situations approached the Commission. One such individual was Frank Fernandes (names changed), who had filed a complaint against a partnership firm that had also abandoned construction and failed to deliver his flat. Ironically, Fernandes had secured a favourable order from the same Commission as far back as August 7, 2017. The builder was ordered to hand over his fully completed flat within 30 days, as per their agreement dated April 2, 2013. If that was not possible, he was to compensate Fernandes with Rs. 52 lakh plus interest, along with Rs. 1 lakh in compensation.
However, the builder failed to comply, prompting Fernandes to file for execution of the order. An execution application is filed when a party does not comply with a Commission’s ruling. During the proceedings, the builder’s representative falsely claimed that they had appealed the 2017 order before the National Commission but failed to provide proof. Also, the National Commission never communicated with us, which would have been expected if an appeal had been filed.
At the time, before the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA 2019) came into effect, recovery was carried out by issuing a certificate to the Collector, who would recover dues like land revenue arrears. However, this process was slow, often taking years. CPA 2019 has since granted Consumer Commissions greater powers to recover dues more efficiently.
In Fernandes’ case, repeated reminders were sent to the Mamlatdar, who had been instructed to initiate recovery. Notices were issued to the firm’s partners, but only one could be served, while the other remained untraceable. Even the partner who received the notice ignored it and failed to appear before the Mamlatdar or the Commission.
For nearly 17 months, proceedings at the State Commission were stalled as I was the only serving member. Fernandes’ case, like many others, remained unresolved for over five years. Under the Act, a single member cannot hear or dispose of cases—except when that member is the President. Eventually, an Apex Court ruling led to my appointment as President, allowing me to pass judgments independently.
Upon assuming charge as President on October 3, 2022, I prioritised clearing long-pending cases, including the case of the 40 victims, which was resolved on October 27, 2022. Having heard of this, Fernandes and his advocate approached the Commission, pleading:
“Your honour, I signed an agreement with this builder 10 years ago (April 2, 2013). Your judgment ordering delivery of my flat was passed six years ago (August 7, 2017), and the recovery certificate was issued five years ago (April 2018). Yet, to this day, I have received neither the flat I paid for with my hard-earned money nor the compensation awarded to me. I request the same justice granted to the 40 victims.”
We recognised the validity of his plea, directed Fernandes to file an appropriate application, and issued fresh notices to the builders. As expected, these notices were returned with the remark Not known. The firm’s partners had deliberately evaded legal proceedings and were classified as absconding.
We then issued a judgment permitting Fernandes to complete the construction of his flat. Also, we ruled that the Registrar of our Commission would sign the sale deed in place of the absent builders. While Fernandes had to bear additional costs to finish the flat, his prior investment was not lost. He finally gained possession and legal ownership of his home.
Postscript: Every construction project requires multiple permissions, licenses, and clearances from various authorities. For instance, if a residential building is planned, the local municipality or panchayat must approve it, as they will later be responsible for waste disposal. Similarly, a Construction License from these authorities and Technical Clearance from the Town & Country Planning (TCP) Authority are required.
Frank faced this issue while completing his flat. When he approached us, we issued an addendum to our judgment, authorising him to apply for and obtain the necessary clearances in place of the builder. Naturally, any statutory fees had to be borne by him.
A Consumer Commission must be proactive in resolving gaps in its judgments. For instance, if an order states that A must pay Rs. 1 lakh to B but does not specify a deadline, when can B request enforcement? In such cases, B should seek clarification from the Commission. Likewise, if an order states that interest is payable at 7% but does not clarify whether it is per annum, such ambiguities must be addressed promptly.
(If you have any questions, comments, or if you are a consumer seeking assistance, please feel free to email me at danjog@yahoo.com)
