Arrest warrants out against Chandigarh builder for non-compliance

Ishrat S Banwait

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 12

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum here has issued arrest warrants against the managing director of Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, Tejinder Pal Setia. The builder had failed to comply with the forum’s order to pay Rs 4 lakh to a Nawanshahr couple who were not given possession of property in stipulated time.

The complainants, Jatinderpal Singh Liddar and Ranjit Liddar, filed an execution petition after the builder failed to comply with the July 2017 order. Even after bailable and non-bailable warrants were issued against him, Setia neither appeared before the forum nor complied with the order.

The forum observed that initially, he put in a presence through his counsel but thereafter, intentionally evaded appearance. The forum added that this “clearly establishes the brazen defiance of the orders of this forum”.

Setia was held guilty of non-compliance of the forum orders and thus sentenced to civil imprisonment for a period of 18 months with a fine of Rs 10,000. Accordingly, arrest warrants were issued against Setia.

The complainants had approached the forum in 2016. They had stated that in 2006, the builder came up with a project in the name and style of “Fashion Technology Park” in Sector 90, Mohali. The couple agreed to purchase a unit in the project and paid Rs 1.25 lakh.

They were allotted a design studio on the sixth floor and the total cost of the unit was Rs 5 lakh, out of which they paid Rs 4.75 lakh. The remaining amount of Rs 25,000 was to be paid at the time of possession.

The builder refused refund or possession of the property to the complainants.

The builder, in its reply, had refused that the complainants paid Rs 4.75 lakh, adding that rather they invested Rs 3.75 lakh in a “small investor scheme”.

The forum had observed that the possession was not delivered for nine years. The forum had then called the builder a “wilful defaulter” and thus directed it to refund Rs 3.75 lakh. In addition, it was told to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation and litigation cost.