| 17-Feb-2023 |
DISPOSED |
The present complaint has been filed on 20.02.2020 and the reply has not been received till now.
The AR of the respondent has already supplied a copy of reply to the
complainant and has filed a copy of reply and is taken on record. The AR of the
respondent also paid Rs.5000/- as costs to the complainant during proceedings.
Succinct
facts of the case as per complaint and annexures are as under:
S. N.
Particulars
Details
1.
Name and location of the project
“Vatika Tower”, Golf Course Road, Gurugram
2.
Nature of the project
Commercial unit
3.
RERA Registered/
not registered
Not registered
4.
Plot no.
P-254 admeasuring 500 sq.ft. (page no. 21 of complaint)
Application for allotment of shop
15.05.2015 (page 21 of complaint)
5.
Date of builder buyer agreement
Not executed
6.
Due date of possession
15.05.2018
Fortune Infrastructure and
Ors. vs. Trevor D' Lima and Ors. (12.03.2018 - SC); MANU/SC/0253/2018 observed that “a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely
for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek
the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we
are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period
stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into
consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of
3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract.
In view of the above-mentioned
reasoning, the date of signing of application for allotment of shop, ought to
be taken as the date for calculating due date of possession. Therefore, the
due date of handing over of the possession of the unit comes out to be 15.05.2018
7.
Total sale price
Rs. 77,84,000/-
(as per SOA dated 10.12.2018, annexure vii, page
65 of complaint)
8.
Amount paid by the complainant
Rs. 81,09,013/-
(as per SOA dated 10.12.2018, annexure vii, page
65 of complaint)
9.
Occupation certificate
Not obtained
10.
Offer of possession
Not offered
The
complainants have sought following relief:
1. Direct the respondent to refund the entire
amount paid by complainant.
Keeping in view the fact that the allottee
complainant wishes to withdraw from the
project and demanding return of the amount received by the promoter in respect
of the unit with interest on failure of the promoter to complete or inability
to give possession of the unit in accordance with the terms of agreement for
sale or duly completed by the date specified therein. The matter is covered
under section 18(1) of the Act of 2016.
The due date of
possession as per agreement for sale as mentioned in the table above is 15.05.2018 and there is delay of 1 years 9 months 5 days on the date of filing of the complaint.
The occupation
certificate/completion certificate of the project where the unit is situated
has still not been obtained by the respondent-promoter. The authority is of the
view that the allottee cannot be expected to wait endlessly for taking
possession of the allotted unit and for which he has paid a considerable amount
towards the sale consideration and as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Abhishek Khanna & Ors., civil appeal no. 5785 of 2019, decided on
11.01.2021
“” …. The occupation certificate is not available even
as on date, which clearly amounts to deficiency of service. The allottees
cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the apartments allotted
to them, nor can they be bound to take the apartments in Phase 1 of the
project…….”
Further in the judgement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited Vs State
of U.P. and Ors. (supra) reiterated in case of M/s Sana Realtors Private Limited
& other Vs Union of India & others SLP (Civil) No. 13005 of 2020 decided on 12.05.2022. it was
observed
25. The unqualified right of
the allottee to seek refund referred Under Section 18(1)(a) and Section 19(4) of the Act is
not dependent on any contingencies or stipulations thereof. It appears that the
legislature has consciously provided this right of refund on demand as an
unconditional absolute right to the allottee, if the promoter fails to give
possession of the apartment, plot or building within the time stipulated under
the terms of the agreement regardless of unforeseen events or stay orders of
the Court/Tribunal, which is in either way not attributable to the
allottee/home buyer, the promoter is under an obligation to refund the amount
on demand with interest at the rate prescribed by the State Government
including compensation in the manner provided under the Act with the proviso
that if the allottee does not wish to withdraw from the project, he shall be
entitled for interest for the period of delay till handing over possession at
the rate prescribed,
The promoter is responsible for all
obligations, responsibilities, and functions under the provisions of the Act of
2016, or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottee as per
agreement for sale under section 11(4)(a). The promoter has failed to complete
or unable to give possession of the unit in accordance with the terms of
agreement for sale or duly completed by the date specified therein.
Accordingly, the promoter is liable to the allottee, as the allottee wishes to
withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to
return the amount received by him in respect of the unit with interest at such
rate as may be prescribed.
The counsel for the
complainant states that the allotted shop/tower is not yet
constructed and the respondent has paid assured return till October 2018 only
and no payment of assured return has
been made after 2018. But as per the
provisions under application form at page 21, the respondent was required to
pay a monthly rent /commitment amount at the rate of Rs.64,860/- till
completion of the project. The AR of the respondent company confirms that
project is not yet completed and no OC has been obtained. In view of same, the refund is allowed alongwith prescribed
rate of interest i.e. 10.60% per annum after adjustment of assured return
already paid by the respondent to the complainant.
The authority
hereby directs the promoter to return the amount received by him i.e., Rs. 81,09,013/- after adjustment of assured return already paid by the
respondent with interest at the rate of 10.60% (the State
Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) applicable as on
date +2%) as prescribed under rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Rules, 2017 from the date of each payment till the actual date
of refund of the amount within the timelines provided in rule 16 of the Haryana
Rules 2017 ibid.
This is without
prejudice to any other remedy available to the allottee including compensation
for which allottee may file an application for adjudging compensation with the
adjudicating officer under sections 71 & 72 read with section 31(1) of the
Act of 2016.
The complaint stands disposed off.
Detailed order will follow. File be consigned to the registry. |
VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL |
View Order |
24-Feb-2023 |
| 20-Dec-2022 |
PENDING |
Proceedings were adjourned due to
administrative reasons. Therefore, no hearings. Adjourned to 17.02.2023 for
the purpose as already fixed. |
K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA |
View Order |
21-Dec-2022 |
| 19-Oct-2022 |
PENDING |
Vide Resolution No. 639 dated 19.10.2022
District Bar Association Gurugram
intimated that today i.e. 19.10.2022
the work shall remain suspended due to Diwali Festival and in view of
the call given by Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana to suspend work in protest
of raids conducted by NIA in an illegal manner at the place of Advocates of
Chandigarh, Gurugram and Bhatinda.
Matter to come up on 20.12.2022 for further
proceedings. |
K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA |
View Order |
20-Oct-2022 |
| 27-Jul-2022 |
PENDING |
Vide resolution No.461 dated 27.07.2022, the
District Bar Association Gurugram has unanimously resolved that work will
remain suspended in District Court Gurugram today as a mark of solidarity with
Bar Associations of Panipat and Palwal against callous attitude of police
against the advocates.
In view of above, the matter
is adjourned to 19.10.2022 for the purpose as already fixed. |
K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL |
View Order |
04-Aug-2022 |
| 22-Mar-2022 |
PENDING |
In view of judgment dated 11.11.2021 in title- M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd. Vs State of UP & Ors. Etc. passed by the Apex Court, this forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint in hands.File be transferred to the Authority. Reader is directed to send the file immediately. |
RAJINDER KUMAR |
--- |
--- |
| 06-Sep-2021 |
PENDING |
No written reply is filed. As per learned
counsel for complainant, copy of
complaint filed in CAO form was sent to
the respondent on 26.10.2020 through email. Learned counsel for respondent
requests for some more time to file reply. In the interest of justice, request
is allowed subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the complainant, let
reply be filed within two weeks with an advance copy to the complainant.
2. To come on 22.03.2022
for arguments. |
RAJINDER KUMAR |
View Order |
13-Sep-2021 |
| 12-Nov-2020 |
PENDING |
BOTH THE
PARTIES PUT IN APPEARANCE.
2. MR VENKET RAO, COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT TO FILE POA ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING.
3. A PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE
SHOWS THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED AUTHORITY IN FORM CRA
SEEKING POSSESSION THE ALLOTTED UNIT OR
IN THE ALTERNATIVE REFUND BESIDES
INTEREST. NOW, IT IS STATED BY THE COMPLAINANT THROUGH COUNSEL THAT
ONLY RELIEF OF REFUND BESIDES
INTEREST AND COMPENSATION IS TO BE SOUGHT. SO, FOR
THIS PURPOSE, THE COMPLAINT IN FORM CAO IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BEFORE THIS
FORUM WITHIN 15 DAYS WITH AN ADVANCE COPY TO THE OTHER SIDE. SO, IT IS ORDERED
ACCORDINGLY.
4. REPLY, IF ANY, BE FILED 10 DAYS
PRIOR TO THE DATE FIXED WITH AN ADVANCE COPY TO THE RESPONDENT.
5. LET THE MATTER BE PUT UP ON 12.11.2020 FOR ARGUMENTS |
SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL |
--- |
--- |
| 05-Oct-2020 |
PENDING |
Both the
parties put in appearance.
2. Mr Venket Rao, counsel for the
respondent to file POA on the next date of hearing.
3. A perusal of the case file
shows that the complaint was filed before the learned Authority in form CRA
seeking possession the allotted unit or
in the alternative refund besides
interest. Now, it is stated by the complainant through counsel that
only relief of refund besides
interest and compensation is to be sought. So, for
this purpose, the complaint in form CAO is required to be filed before this
forum within 15 days with an advance copy to the other side. So, it is ordered
accordingly.
4. Reply, if any, be filed 10 days
prior to the date fixed with an advance copy to the respondent.
5. Let the matter be put up on 12.11.2020 for arguments |
SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL |
View Order |
09-Oct-2020 |
| 01-Oct-2020 |
PENDING |
Since Covid-19 is still at its peak level and keeping in view the large number of
cases listed for hearing on 01.10.2020
and in order to maintain social distancing to contain the impact of the pandemic,
it will not be possible to hear
and dispose of all such cases. In such a situation, to avoid the gathering of
large number of litigants/their counsels, the matter is adjourned to 05.10.2020
for hearing. |
SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL |
View Order |
09-Oct-2020 |
| 10-Aug-2020 |
PENDING |
DUE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 01.10.2020 |
SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL |
View Order |
09-Oct-2020 |
| 15-May-2020 |
PENDING |
DUE TO LOCKDOWN, THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 10.08.2020 |
SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL |
View Order |
06-Jun-2020 |
| 25-Mar-2020 |
FIRST HEARING |
Due to lockdown, the matter is adjourned to 15.05.2020 |
SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL |
View Order |
05-Jun-2020 |