KARAM SINGH vs SAVYASACHI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

Complaint No.4465 of 2023 BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM 4465 of 2023 26.09.2023 02.04.2025 Complainant Respondents Member Complainant Respondents ffiHARERA ffiGURUGRAM Complaint no.

Date of filing Date of decision Mr.

Karam Singh R/o:- House no.

91-8, fhang Apartment, plot no.40, Sector- 13, Rohini, Delhi- 110085 Versus 1.

M/s Savyasachi Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd.

Regd. office at: - M-166,2na floor, South City- 1, Gurugram-122001, 2.

M/s Sharma Confectioners Pvt.

Regd. office at: - 38, Mandeville Gardens, Ballygunge P.S.

Gariahat, Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 CORAM: Shri Ashok Sangwan None ORDER 1' This complaint has been filed by the complainant/allottee under Section 31 of the Real Estate [Regulation and Development) Act, 201,6 (in short, the Act) read with Rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (in short, the Rules) for violation of Section 11[4J[a) of the Acr wherein it is inter alra prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provision of the Act or the Rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottee as per the allotment letter. ,/ Page 1 oi 16 HARERA ffiGURUGI?AM Complaint No.

4465 of 2023 A.

Proiect and plot related details 2.

The particulars of the project, the details of sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainant date of proposed handing over the possession, delay period, if any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: Sr.

No.

Particulars Details L, Name of the project "Amaya Greens", Sector 03, Gurugram.

2.

Nature of the project Deen Dayal Jan Awaas Yojna 3.

Total project area *Note: Complainant's SCO plot falls under unlicensed area.

L2.1625 acres 9.0375 acres (licensed) 3.L25 acres [Unlicensed 4.

License no.

Not obtained by DTCP 5.

BqRA registered or not Not registered 7.

MOU executed .between respondent no.

L |';ihd tile complainant I 03.12.2021, (page ZB of complaint) B.

SC0 plot no.

0 plot no.

B-10 admeasuring 54.358 sq, yds. (tentative) fpage 28 of comp]aint) 9.

Basic sale consideration Rs.21,40,000/- (As per clause 5 of M0U) (page 29 of complaint) [Note: BSP is calculated @ Rs.

39,368.631- per sq. yds, Any other charges i.e., EDC, IDC, IFMS, Electricity connection, sewerage connection and water connection shall be in addition to the said BSP.I Rs.

11,00,000/- (As per clause 2 of the MOU) fPage 28 of complaintl 10.

Paid up amount It.

Possession clause 6. "That the First Porty ossures the Second I Party thot the possession of the said SC} shall I be handed over within a period of Twelve I monthsfrom the date of si.gning of this MOU." i 1.2.

Due date of possession 03.t2.2022 L3.

O ccupation Certificate Not obtained 1,4.

0ffer of possession Not offered B.

Facts of the complaint 3.

The complainant has made following submissions in the complaint: Page 2 of 16 / HARERA GUl?UGt?AM Complaint No.

4465 of 2023 That in 2017 , the respondent issued an advertisement announcing a Deen Dayal fan Awaas Yojna "Amaya Greens" at sector -3, Farukh Nagar, Gurugram, under license no.3T of 20lz dated 24.06.2017, issued by DTCp, Haryana and thereby invited applications from prospective buyers for the purchase of unit in the said project.

The respondent confirmed that the project had got building plan approval from the authority. b) Relying on various representations and assurances given by the respondent and on belief of such assurances, complainant booked a SCO unit in the project by paying an amount of Rs.

2,00,000 /- towards the said unit bearing no. sco 8-L0, in sector-3, Gurugram, having super area admeasuring 54.358 sq. yards. to the respondent dated 02.09.2021 and the same was acknowledged by the respondent. c) That a MOU dated 03.12.2021 was executed between the parties for a total sale consideration of Rs.

2l,4o,0oo/-, including basic price, EDC and IDC, car parking charges and other specifications of the allotted unit. tted unit. d) That at the time of execution of the said MOU, assurance was made to the complainant that the agreement will be executed within 2 months but till date respondent no.1 has failed to execute the buyer's agreement and also failed to offer/handover the possession the said unit even after delay of more than around 1year. e) That the possession of the unit was to be delivered within the promised period of 1.2 months from the date of MOU i.e. by 03.1,2.2021.

Therefore, the due date of possession comes out to be 03,12.2022.

0 That after repeated reminders and follow ups, the respondent provided a copy of the said MOU to the complainant in the year 2023.

Furthermore, when the complainants received said copy of the MOU it was very shocking to the complainant that respondent acting arbitrarily changed the agreed Page 3 of 16 4/ a) w ffi flwqs w{d HARERA ffi GU|?UGIIAM Complaint No.

4465 of 2023 terms and conditions of the booking in MOU.

Thereafter, the complainant raised the objection to same and respondent provided false assurance to the complainant that it is just for the formaliry. g) That as per the said MOU, the respondent was liable to handover the possession of the said unit on or before 03.12.2022, therefore, the respondent was liable to pay interest as per the prescribed rate as laid under the RERA Act,201.6 and HRERA Rules, 201,7 for delay in delivery of possession till the completion of the construction of unit. h) During the period the complainant went to the office of respondent several times and requested them to allow them to visit the site further enquiring as to when the respondents will get buyers agreement executed but it was never allowed saying that they do not permit any buyer to visit the site during construction period.

The complainant already paicl a sum of Rs.11,40,000/- towards the said unit against total sale consideration of Rs.

2L,4O,OOO / -. i) That allotment of the unit was made on 03.12. on 03.12.2022,after coming into force of the RERA Act,2016 and as per the Act, after coming into force of the Act the respondent can charge only on the carpet of the unit not on the super area of the unit.

In the present case, respondent has charged the complainant on the super area i.e.

54.358 Sq. yards @ Rs.39,368 per Sq.

Yards which is against the provisions of the RERA Act,Z116 and the rules,2017 made thereof.

Hence, in accordance with the provisions of the RERA Act, necessary penal action to be taken against the respondent and direction may kindly be passed to the respondent to charge on the carpet area instead of the super area of the unit. j) That the payment plan was designed in such a way to extract maximum payment from the buyers viz aviz or done/completed.

The complainant Page4of16 HARERA ffi GUI?UGI?AM approached the respondent and asked about the status ofconstruction and also raised objections towards non-completion of the project.

It is pertinent to state herein that such arbitrary and illegal practices have been prevalent amongst builders before the advent of RERA, wherein the payment/demands/ etc. have not been transparent and demands were being raised without sufficient justifications and maximum payment was extracted just raising structure leaving all amenities/finishing/facilities/cgmmon areafroad and other things promised in the brochure, which counts to almost 50o/o of the total project work. k) That the respondent is guilty of deficiency in service within the purview of provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (Central Act 1.6 of 20L6) and the provisions of Haryana Real Estate [Regulation and Development) Rule s,2017.

The complainant has suffered on account of deficiency in service by the respondent and as such the respondent is fully liable to cure the deficiency as per the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 [Central Act 16 of 2016) and the provisions of Haryana Real Estate [Regul ate [Regulation and Development) Rule s,20lT . l) That the clauses of allotment letter are totally unjust, arbitrary and amounts to unfair trade practice as held by the Hon'ble NCDRC in the case titled as shri satish Kumar pandey & Anr. v/s M.s llnitech Ltd. (14.07.2015) as also in the judgment of Hon'ble supreme court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt Ltd Vs.

UOI and ors. (W.p 2737 of 2077). m) That as per section 18 of the RERA Act.

2016, the promoter is liable to pay delay possession charges to the allottees of a unit, building or project for a Page 5 of16 ./ Complaint No.

4465 of 2023 ffi ffi !rq{q ilsi HARERA GUl?UGI?AM Complaint No.

4465 of 2023 delay or failure in handing over of such possession as per the terms and agreement of the sale. nJ That the project in question is ongoing as defined under Rule 2[o) of the Rules, ibid and does not fall in any of the exception provided under the Rules. o) The complainant after losing all the hope from the respondents, having his dreams shattered of owning a flat and having basic necessary facilities in the vicinity of "Amaya Greens" project and also losing considerable amount, are constrained to approach this Hon'ble Authority for redressal of their grievance.

C.

Relief sought by the complainant 4.

The complainant herein is seeking following relief[s): I.

Direct the respondent to hand over the symbolic and constructive possession of said unit in question with all amenities and specifications as promised, in all completeness without any further delay.

II.

Direct the respondent to execute a builder buyer agreement in respect of the unit in question in favour of the complainant.

III.

Direct the respondent to pay the interest on the total amount paid by complainant at the prescribed rate of interest as per RERA, from due date of possession till the handing over of possession.

IV. ssion.

IV.

Restrain the respondent from raising fresh demand(s) for payment under any head, as the complainant had already made payment as per the payment plan.

V' Direct the respondent not to force the complainant to sign any indemnity-cum-undertaking indemnifying the builder from anything legal as a pre-condition for signing the conveyance deed.

VI.

Direct the respondent not to charge anything irrelevant which has not been agreed to between the parties like labour cess, electrification charges, maintenance charges etc, which in any case is not payable by the complainant.

5.

The Authority issued a notice dated 27.09.2023 to the respondent by speed post and also sent it to the provided email addresses, Page 6 of16 / ffiHARERA ffi,GuRUGRRtt,,t Complaint No.

4465 of 2023 s avya s a c h i @ gm a i l. c o m. s n d a s L 9 5 3 @ g m a i I . c o m, r a w a t g a ur a v 6*4 6_4@gmail com.

Delivery reports have been placed on record.

Despite this, a public notice for the appearance of respondent and for filing a reply was published in the newspapers, namely Dainik Bhaskar and The Hindustan Times.

The respondents failed to appear before the Authority on 0 5.0 L.2024, 0 6.03.2024, 24.0 4.2024, tO .07 .202 4, Og.t O .202 4, 15.0 1.2025.

None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite being given sufficient and multiple opportgUifigs1,ln view of the same, the defense of the respondent was struct offl,glrpriatter was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated oz.o4.zozs ,nai'ii'-u.id; decided on basis of facrs and documents submitted wi .tliecomplaint which are undisputed. subject matter reasons given below.

D.l Territorial j urisdiction 7.

As per notification no.

1/92/2077-7TCP dated 74.72.2077 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with offices situated in Gurugram.

Gurugram.

In the present case, the project in question is situated within the planning area of Gurugram District.

Therefore, this authority has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint.

D.II Subiect matter iurisdiction B.

Section t1(4)[a) of the Act, 201,6 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

Section 11t4)(a) is reproduced as hereunder: Section 77...... ft) The promoter shall- Page 7 of 16 ^/ D. furisdiction of the authority 6.

The Authority observes that it has territorial as well as jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for the .<Jil;h W ffi GURUGRAM HARER& Complaint No.

4465 of 2023 (a) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions uncler the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreementfor sale, or to the association of allottees, as the case may be, till the conveyance of all the apartments, plots or buildings, as the case moy be, to the allottees, or the common oreos to the association of allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be; Section 34-Functions of the Authority: 3a(fl of the Act provides to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the ollottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations mode thereunder.

9.

So, in view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, the Authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliance of obligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer if pursued by the complainant at a later stage.

10.

Further, the authority has no hitch in proceeding with the complaint and to grant a relief of refund in the present matter in view of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited vs state of u,P. ond ors. . ond ors. z0z7-2022 (1) RCR (civil), 3s7 and reiterated in case of M/s Sana Realtors Private Limited & other Vs union of India & others sLP (civil) No.

1300s of 2020 decided on 72.05.2022, wherin i€t "r'b.un laid down as under: 86.

From the scheffib*,ffth, eHofw,tticf a detoiled ieyerence has been made and taking nob of power,otadjqdicattcii aeUneoitedwith the regulatory authority and itdiudicating officeia wthatfinally culls out is that although the Act indicates the distinct expressions like 'refund', 'interest', 'penolty' and 'compensation', a conjoint reading of Sections 1g ond 19 clearly manifests that when it comes to refund of the amount, and interest on the refund amoun| or directing payment of interestfor delayed delivery of possession, or penalty and interest thereon, it is the regulatory authority which has the power to examine and determine the outcome of a complaint.

At the same time, when it comes to a question of seeking the relief of adjudging compensation and interest thereon under Sections 72, 74, 78 and 79, the adjudicating oJficer exclusively has the power to determine, keeping in view the collective reading of Section 71 readwith Section 72 of the Act. if the adjudication under Sections 12, 14, */ 18 and 1-9 other than compensation as envisaged, if extended to the Page 8 of 16 adiudicating fficer as prayed that, in our view, may intend to expand the ambit and scope of the powers ond functions of the adjudicating officer under Section 71 ond that would be against the mandote of the Act 2015 L1,.

Hence, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases mentioned above, the Authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint seeking refund of the amount and interest on the HARERA ffi GUI?UGI?AM Complaint No.

4465 of 2023 refund amount.

Findings on the relief sought by the complainant.

E. ainant.

E.I Direct the respondent to hand over the symbolic and constructive possession of said unit in question with all amenities and specifications as promised, in all completeness without any further delay.

E.II Direct the respondent to execute a builder buyer agreement in respect of the unit in question in favour of the complainant.

E.III Direct the respondont to pa/ the interest on the total amount paid by complainant at the prescribed rate of interest as per RERA, from due date of possession till the handing over of possession.

E.lv Restrain the respondent from raising fresh demand(s) for payment under any head, as the complainant had already made payment as per the payment plan.

E.v Direct the respondent not to force the complainant to sign any indemnity-cum -undertaki ng indem nifying th e buil der fro m a nyth i ng legal as a pre-condition for signing the conveyance deed.

E.VI Direct the respondent not to charge anything irrelevant which has not been agreed to between the parties like labour cess, electrification charges, maintenance charges etc, which in any case is not payable by the complainant.

During the hearing dated 02.04.2025, the counsel for the complainant stated at bar that the complainant in the present case is praying for relief of refund to be allowed, as the work at site has not even started and there is no hope of completion of the project.

The factual matrix of the present case reveals that the complainant booked SCo no.

B-10, admeasuring 54.358 sq. yards.

A Mou with regard to rhe subject unit was executed on o3.lz.zoz1 between the parties.

The complainant has paid Rs. l-1,00,000/- against the basic sale consideration Page 9 ol 16 E.

1.2.

13.

HARTRA W.* GUI?UGI?AM Complaint No.

4465 of 2023 Page 10 of 16 of Rs.

21,40,000/-.

As per clause 6 of the Mou, it was agreed by the promoter-respondent that the SCO plot shall be handed over within a period of 72 months from the date of MoU.

1,4.

MoU.

The Authority in cR/5512/2022 ritled as "sunil Kumar & Anr. vs Savyasachi Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd. & Sharma Confectioners Pvt.

Ltd." in order to ascertain the situation, on 37,08.2025, appointed an Enquiry Officer, namely, Shri.

Ramesh Kumar, retired DSp.

In pursuance to above-mentioned directions passed by the Authority, the Enquiry Officer submitted the status report on 23.12.2023 and has concluded as under: "6, Conclusion: , , The site of the nrffilf ..e.n "AmaJlq Green\", located at Sector-3, Farukhnagar, Gurugram being dcveloped by M/s Savyasochi lnfrastructure pvt.

Ltd. has been inspected on.72,12.2023 and it is concluded that: - (A) Collaboration agreement dated 28.06.2016 had been registered between the landowner i.e.,'sharma confectioners Pvt.

Ltd, in colloboration with the developer i.e., Savyasachi Infrostructure Pvt.

Ltd. for the land admeasuring 97 Karnal 6 marla' i.e.,72.162 5 acres. (B) The license had beeh"gian*til'by DTCP vlde license no 37 of 2017 dated 24.06.2017 valid up to 27.06.2022 for land admeasuring 9.037s acres only and afier tnatthepr"oJecthad been registered with the interim RERA vide RC no 212 of 2017 d"oted L8.09.2017 valid up to 16,03.2023 (including 6 months Covid extension)., (c) completion certiftcate had'been granted by DGTCp, Haryana vide memo no.

LC-3257/lE{Sl)-2027/510 dated 7t,07.2027 for license no 37 of 2077 for land admeasuring 9.0375 acres only, (D) The balance part i.e., 3.725 acres has not been granted any license by DTCP, Haryana and not registered with the Authority also. (E) As per the statement of landowner SPA was cancelled on 03.01.2022 by the landowner due to some disputes arise between them and complaints regarding scO which is to be handed over by the promoter i.e., M/s Savyasachi Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd.falls outside the license no 37 of 2017 and the area on which SCO's are proposed to build has not granted any license from DTCP Haryana.

HARERE W- OURUGRAM Complaint No. plaint No.

4465 of 2023 (F) M)U's were signed on different dates as per mentioned in the table between the developer i.e., Savyasachi Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd and complainant i.e,, Mr.

Vinod Kumar S/o Sh.

Ramchander and payment had been received from developer without registering the project with the Authority. (G) Landowner i.e., Sharma Confectioners Pvt.

Ltd. stated that they have no obiection for the allottees who has been offered possession by the developer i.e., Savyasachi Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd. in the land parcel of 9.0375 acres only and will not create any obstruction to the allottees for taking the physical possessron and once the license and registration has been granted for the balance part i.e., 3.L25 ecres, then they will not have any objections for giving possession to the concerned ollottees also.(statement attached as Annex- C) 15.

In pursuance of the above-mentioned conclusion, the Authority observes that the total area of the project is 12.1625 acres.

The DCTP, Haryana, has granted the license to develop the colony only for an area of 9.0375 acres only.

The remaining area, i.e.,3.1.25 acres, has not been granted any license by DTCP, Haryana, nor is it registered with the Authority.

The unit booked by the complainant is part of unlicensed and unregistered area measuring 3.1,25 acres.

Herein, the complainant intends to withdraw from the project and is seeking return of the amount paid by her in respect of subject unit along with interest at the prescribed rate as provided under Section 1B( 1 ) of the Act.

Section 1B[1) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference:- Section 78: -;RCturn of amount and compensotion 18(1).

If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot, or building.- (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, os the case moy be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a deveroper on account of suspension or revocation evocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the ailottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to ony other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensotion in the manner as provided under this Act: Page 11 of 16 ffiHARERA ffiqJRUGRAM Complaint No.

4465 of 2023 Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the projecl he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed." (Emphasis supplied) Clause 6 of the memorandum of understanding dated 03.12.2021 provides for the time period for handing over of possession and is reproduced below: "5) That the First Party ossures the Second Party that the possession of the said Plot shall be handed over within a period of Twelve months from the date of signing of this MOU Due date of handing over possession: As per clause 6 of the MoU, the possession of the allotted SCO plot was supposed to be offered within a stipulated timeframe of 12 months from the date of signing of the MOU.

In the present matter, the MoU was executed on 03.12 .2021and hence the respondent was liable to handover possession by 03.12.2022 in terms of the said MoU.

18.

Admissibility of refund along with prescribed rate of interest: 'fhe complainant is seeking refund the amount paid by her at the prescribed rate of interest and intends to withdraw from the project.

The prescribed rate of interestas provided under Rule 15 of the Rules, ibid.

Rule 15 has been reproduced as under: Rule 75.

Prescribed rate of interest- [Proviso to section 72, section 78 and sub'section (4) and subsection (7) of section 191 (1) For the purpose of proviso to section 12; section 1. section 1.8; and sub-sections (4) and (7) of section 1-9, the "interest at the rate prescribed" shall be the State Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate +20/0.: Provided that in case the state Bank of India marginal cost of lending rqte (MCLR) is not in use, it shall be replaced by such benchmark lending rates which the State Bank of India may fix from time to time for lending to the general public.

1,9.

The legislature in its wisdom in the subordinate legislation under the provision of Rule 15 of the Rules, ibid, has determined the prescribed rate Page 12 of 16 16.

1.7.

1/ HARERA ffiGUI?UGI?AM of interest.

The rate of interest so determined by reasonable and if the said rule is followed to award ensure uniform practice in all the cases.

Compfaint No.

4465 of 2023 the legislature, is the interest, it will 21,.

22.

20.

Consequently, as per website of the State Bank of India i.e., https://sbi.co.in, the marginal cost of lending rate (in short, MCLR) as on date i.e., 02.04.2025 is 9.loo/o.

Accordingly, the prescribecl rate of interest will be marginal cost of lending rate +2o/o i.e., 1L.LOo/o.

Keeping in view the fact that the allottee/complainant wishes to withdraw from the project and seeking refund of the amount received by the promoter in respect of the SCO plot 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 1B(1) of the Act of 2016.

The due date of possession as per MoU is 03.12.2022 andthere is delay of 9 months and22 days on the date of filing of the complaint.

The Authorfty has further, observed that till date neither the construction is complete nor the offer of possession of the allotted unit has been made to the allottee by the respondent/promoter, even after a passage of more than 2.5 years approximately. oximately.

The Authority is of the view that the allottee cannot be expected to wait endlessly for taking possession of the unit which is allotted to it and for which they have paid more than BOo/o of sale consideration.

It is also pertinent to mention that complainant has paid the more than B0o/o amount on the date of entering into the memorandum of understanding, i.e., on 03.1,2.2021.

Further, the Authority observes that the total area of the project is 1,2.i,625 acres.

The DCTp, Haryana, has granted the occupation certificate only for an area of 9.0375 acres.

The remaining area of 3.1,25 acres, which includes the complainant's SCO plot, Page 13 of 16 / ffiHARERA ffiGURUGRntr,l Complaint No.

4465 of 2023 has not been granted any license by the DTCP, Haryana, nor it is registered with the Authority and neither the promoter is making any efforts to complete the project or even application for grant of permission to develop the colony has been initiated.

In view of the above-mentioned facts, the allottee is well within the right to seek refund of the paid up amount in terms of Section 1B(1) of the Act,201,6.

23.

In the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases o/ Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited Vs State of lt,p. and Ors. (supro) reiterated in case of M/s Sana Realtors Private Limited & other Vs llnion of India & others SLP (Civil) No.

73005 of 2020 decided on 12.05.2022, it was observed that- The unqualified right of the allottee to seek refund referred tJnder Section 1B(1)(a) and Section Dft) of the Act is not dependent on any contingencies or stipulations thereof, It appears that the legislature has consciously prouided this right of refund on demand as qn 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 stoy orders of the Court/Tribunal, which is in either way not er way not attributabie to the allottee/home buyer, the promoter is under an obligation to refund the amount on demand with interest at the rate presribed 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 proiect, he shall be entitled for interest for the period of detiy till handing over possession at the rate prescribed.,, 24.

The promoter is responsible for all obligations, responsibilities, and functions under the provisions of the Act of 201,6, or the rules ancl regulations made thereunder or to the allottee as per agreement for sale under Section 1,1'(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 Page 14 o[ 16 ar/ ffi ffi ilrq{q ilqi HARERE GURUGRAM complainr No.

4465 of 2023 amount received by it in respect of the unit with interest at such rate as may be prescribed.

25.

Accordingly, the non-compliance of the mandate contained in Section 11( J(al read with Section 18(11 of the Act on the part of the respondent is established.

As such, the complainant is entitled to refund of the entire amount paid by them at the prescribed rate of interest i.e., @ 11 .l0o/o p.a. [the State Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) applicable as on date +20/o) as prescribed under Rule 15 of the Flaryana Real Estate fRegulation 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 t6 of the Haryana Rules 2017 ibid.

F.

Directions of the Authority 26. hority 26.

Hence, the Authoriry hereby passes this order and issues the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted to the authority under section 34(fl: L The respondent/promoter is directed to refund the entire paid-up amount i.e., Rs.11,00,000/- received by it from the complainant along with interest at the rate of 11,.10o/o p.a. as prescribed under Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 from the date of each payment till the actual realization of the amount.

IL A period of 90 days is given to the respondent to comply with the directions given in this order and failing which legal consequences would follow.

The planning branch of the authorily is directed to take necessary action under the provision of the Act of 2016 for violation of proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act by the respondent for sale of units without registration and license. '/ Page 15 of 16 ffiHARERA ffiGURLIGRAM The complaints stand disposed of.

Files be consigned to registry.

Dated: O2.O4.2O25 27.

28.

Complaint No.

4465 of 2023 (Ashok Regulatory Authority, Gurugram Page 16 of 16 M