TIRUPATI, the holy town in south India, is known for its temples and the bounty that the gods shower on devotees. But there was nothing beatific involved in what Rajendra Prasad Mittal and his brother-in-law Rakesh Kumar did in the name of Tirupati. In yet another unholy scam, their Delhi-based housing company Tirupati Associates swindled innocent people of their savings—totalling over Rs 1 crore—in the name of selling them dream homes in Ghaziabad.
The consumers, 344 in all, decided on the more human course of action—to appeal before S.P. Saberwal, president, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. That he put the fear of god into the minds of the culprits. Their prayers elicited an emphatic response—the forum recently sentenced Mittal and Kumar to an unprecedented 182 years in prison.
The severity of the sentence was 'warranted' due to their failure to comply with the March '95 order of the forum—to return the money collected from people, ostensibly to build apartments. There is nothing new about the method which Tirupati Associates adopted in its attempt to dupe gullible consumers: take the money and run. The bait for consumers was laid out in the early '90s, when advertisements in various Delhi newspapers gave enticing details of the work undertaken in the development of the Tirupati Township in suburban Ghaziabad. The advertisements also gaily claimed that a no-objection certificate, which allowed the promoters to go ahead with the construction activity, had been obtained from the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The trick worked. People queued up to buy a piece of the action.
It was much later that the prospective buyers of the plots discovered to their horror that no legal registration for development of the land under question had been obtained. When they asked for refunds of the money deposited, it was denied. Left with little option, they went to the extent of asking that at least the principal amounts given be handed back to them. But to no avail. It was only when matters reached the court that Mittal and Kumar were forced to realise that the long rope that the consumers had given them was nearing its end.
Hence, the order sentencing the scamsters to 182 years in prison. Forum president Saberwal invoked Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides that if a trader or person fails to comply with any order of the district consumer forum, he is liable to be punished for a minimum of one month which may increase to three years or a fine or both.
The reason why the sentence has added up to 182 years is because Saberwal, who earlier served as the district judge of Delhi, has ordered that the sentences shall run consecutively, not concurrently, as is normal practice. Mittal and Kumar were sentenced for six months in some cases, a one year sentence in another... together adding up to 182 years. In essence, a separate sentence has been awarded on each of the complaints separately. If the sentence had run concurrently, the two would have served a maximum sentence of three years.
Since even criminal cases are not punished with such severe sentences, there is talk of the forum having overstepped its limits. According to Supreme Court lawyer Raju Ramachandran, the term is beyond the powers of the court since the maximum term that the Consumer Protection Act provides for is three years. "This is most unusual and sets a very bad precedent," he says. Each complaint, he asserts, cannot be treated separately for the purpose of conviction.
Fortunately for the two culprits, there is a ray of hope. The sentence has been stayed for three months, during which, if they return a part of the money, the sentence would be reduced accordingly. Moreover, relief could be granted if they paid back the entire amount collected within a time frame which satisfies the forum. The duo had initially been ordered to return the money. In a bid to gain time, they had appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. If they don't pay up now, there is every possibility of the court putting them behind bars.
However, given the growing number of persons duped by non-banking finance companies, investments and finance companies, the order of the forum could not have come at a more opportune time. The company has already disappeared from its registered office and though justice has been done, it is yet to be seen as having been done.
