24-Feb-2023 |
DISPOSED |
The present
complaint was filed on 18.03.2021 and the reply on behalf of respondent has been received
on 15.07.2022. The CRA for refund has been received on 21.04.2022.
The succinct facts of the case are as
follows:
Sr.
No.
Particulars
Details
1.
Name of the project
“Ansal Heights 86”, Sector 86, Gurugram.
2.
Total area of the project
12.843
acres
3.
Nature of the project
Group
housing colony
4.
DTCP license no.
48 of
2011 dated 29.05.2011 valid upto 28.05.2017
5.
Name of licensee
Resolve
Estate Pvt. Ltd.
6.
Registered/not registered
Not
registered
7.
Unit no.
C-1202
[pg. 24 of complaint]
8.
Area of the unit
1895 sq. ft.
[pg. 24 of complaint]
9.
Date of execution of buyer’s agreement with original allottee
10.09.2012
[pg. 21 of complaint]
10.
Date of transfer of unit in name of the complainant
18.04.2013
[pg. 39 of complaint]
11.
Possession clause
31.
The
developer shall offer possession of the unit any time, within a period of
42 months from the date of execution of the agreement or within 42 months
from the date of obtaining all the required sanctions and approval necessary
for commencement of construction, whichever is later subject to timely
payment of all dues by buyer and subject to force majeure circumstances as
described in clause 32. Further, there shall be a grace period of 6 months
allowed to the developer over and above the period of 42 months as above
in offering the possession of the unit.”
(Emphasis
supplied)
[pg. 29 of complaint]
12.
Due date of possession
10.09.2016
(Note:
42 months from date of agreement i.e., 10.09.2012 as date of start of
construction is not known + 6 months grace period allowed being unqualified)
13.
Basic sale consideration as per payment plan annexed with BBA at page 37
of complaint.
₹
71,62,816.75/-
14.
Total amount paid by the complainant as alleged
by the complainant on pg. 7 of complaint
₹
55,42,452/-
15.
Email requesting for refund of the amount paid by the complainant
22.02.2021
[pg.
51 of complaint]
16.
Offer of possession
Not offered
The
complainant is seeking the following reliefs:
1.
Refund
entire amount paid (₹55,42,452/-) by the
complainant along with the interest.
The instant matter
falls in the category where the promoter has failed to complete or unable to
give possession of the unit in accordance with terms of the agreement for sale
or duly completed by the date specified therein and still OC has not been
obtained/possession has not been handed over.
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 10.09.2016..
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.
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 authority hereby
directs the promoter to return the amount received by him i.e., Rs. 55,42,452/- with interest at the rate of 10.70% (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.
Matter stands disposed
off. Detailed order will follow. File be
consigned to the registry. |
SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA |
View Order |
09-Mar-2023 |
21-Oct-2022 |
PENDING |
The present complaint was filed on 18.03.2020
and the reply on behalf
of respondent has been received on 15.07.2022. The CRA for refund has been
received on 21.04.2022.
The counsel for the complainant states that
the complainant has not received the copy of reply. The counsel for the respondent has supplied a
copy of the reply during proceedings.
Matter
to come up on 24.02.2023 for further proceedings. |
VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA |
View Order |
28-Oct-2022 |
15-Jul-2022 |
PENDING |
Adjourned to
21.10.2022 for the purpose as already fixed |
K K KHANDELWAL VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL |
View Order |
20-Jul-2022 |
28-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 |
View Order |
20-Jul-2022 |
12-Jan-2022 |
PENDING |
No reply has been filed by the respondent.
Learned proxy counsel for respondent seeks time to file written reply. Allowed.
Be filed within two weeks from today
with an advance copy to the complainant.
To come on 28.03.2022 for further proceedings/arguments. |
RAJINDER KUMAR |
View Order |
28-Jan-2022 |
18-Aug-2021 |
PENDING |
None for parties. Issued notice to parties for
next date.
2. To come on 12.01.2022
for further proceedings. |
RAJINDER KUMAR |
View Order |
20-Jul-2022 |
07-May-2021 |
PENDING |
Due to increase in the Covid-19 cases in and
around the area of the Authority and lockdown in the State, the case is not
being taken up for hearing. Hence, as per directions of the Hon’ble Authority,
it is being adjourned to 18.08.2021 for the proceedings already fixed.
2. Both the
parties be informed accordingly through e-mail. |
SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL |
View Order |
12-May-2021 |
15-Apr-2021 |
FIRST HEARING |
In view of
resolution bearing reference no. 6900
dated 15.04.2021 received from District Bar Association, Gurugram, learned
counsel for the parties are not putting in appearance due to suspension of
work. So, in view of the same, the case is being
adjourned to 07.05.2021 for the proceedings already fixed.
2. Both the
parties be informed accordingly through e-mail. |
SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL |
View Order |
20-Jul-2022 |