Delhi HC stays NCDRC order of 3-year jail to Supertech MD, directs Rs 50 L be paid to home buyer

By Express News Service

NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court on Monday asked realtor Supertech to cough up Rs 40 lakh by October-end to a home buyer, Kanwal Batra, who filed a complaint about the delay in giving possession of a villa in one of the company’s projects in Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Area, adjacent to the national capital.

Justice Amit Bansal said besides Rs 40 lakh, another Rs 17 lakh shall be paid to the home buyer by November end. The court said that the Rs 40 lakh shall be utilised by the man to repay the loan and for his daughter’s marriage.

The court was informed that the total amount due to the home buyer was around Rs 1.79 crore, out of which Rs 50 lakh has been paid to him in pursuance of the court’s September 24 order. As the principal amount was Rs 1.07 crore, the court asked the realtor to first clear that after which the builder shall place before it the payment plan.

The court had on September 24, stayed an order of the National Consumer Disputes  Redressal Commission (NCDRC) sentencing Supertech MD Mohit Arora to three-year imprisonment and issuing an arrest warrant against him for noncompliance with an order in the case by the home buyer.

The high court had directed the realty firm to deposit Rs 50 lakh in the home buyer’s account within a week to show it’s bona fide to the court.  The court has listed the matter for further hearing on November 11, when the realtor shall give his payment plan.

The high court was hearing Supertech’s plea challenging the September 20 order by which Arora was given three-year jail and the arrest warrant was issued against him for noncompliance with NCDRC directions.

Earlier, Supertech’s counsel had argued that the NCDRC order was beyond the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and there was no provision it which casts vicarious liability on the MD to make him liable in criminal or civil matters in case of default by the company.

The plea was opposed by the home buyer’s counsel who had said the company was in repeated default of the NCDRC order and has gone back on its undertaking to the forum.