MRS KARISHMA BISHT vs SUPOSHAA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED

THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGMM Complaint no.: 662A of 2O22 Order pronounced on : O9.04.2024 Huda Plots, Sector 56, Gurugram Complainant Versus con Private Limited Office at:- Unit o.

SB / C /2L I office / 077 A, M3M Urbana Smartworld r - 67, Gurugram, Haryana - 122102 Vivek Singhal C con Private Limited O Smartworld Developers International Financial Center, Tower-2, r 66, Gurugra m, Hary ana- 122002 12 A Floor, Sect Ruchit Pruthi D Sushant Bali or Chaahat Home Infratech Pvt.

Ltd.

Manager at Chaahat Homes TeePoint, South Block, 6th Floor, Sector- aryana-1.22002 o Rohit Yadav Sal Executive Chaahat Homes Office at:- M3 65, Gurugram, TeePoint, South Block, 6th Floor, Sector- 122002 ffi HARE #- eunuer BEFO Karishma Bisht R/o: - House no.6 M/s Suposhaa M/s Suposhaa Office at:- M3 Hulas Sharma Office at:- M3 65, Gurugram, CORAM: Shri Arun Kumar Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal Shri Sanjeev Kumar Arora APPEARANCE: Shri Karishma Bisth Ms.

Shriya Takkar (Advocate) Shri Aditya Chhibber [Advocate) 1.

2.

5.

4.

6.

7.

Complaint No.6628 of 2022 Respondent(s) Chairman Member Member Complainant Respondent No.

1 to 4 Respondent No.

5 to tl Page 1ollB (L 7.

Complaint No.6628 of 2022 ORDER This complaint h4s been filed by the complainant/allottee under section 31 of the Real Estate (f,.egulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, the Act) read with rule 2S of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (in lhort, rhe Rules) for violation of section 11(a)(a) of the Act wherein it is lnter a/io 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 agreement for sale executed inter se. inter se.

Unit and proiect related details The particulars of unit details, 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: Details 'Smart World Orchard, Sector -61' ' Inde ent floor residence 20.60902 acres l Valid up to 15.09.2026 l & Ors.

C/o Commander Realtors Pvt.

Realcon Pvt.

A.

68 of 2021dated 16.09.2011 RERA registered vide no. dared 03.11.2021 Valid up to 21.12.2024 L.3B 47 ofcom lain t 1120 sq. ft. (Page no.

47 of comPlaint) 74 of 2027 Name of the proiect Nature of the proiect Project area DTCP License no, Licensee Name RERA registered/ not registered Unit no.

Unit area admeasuring Page 2 ol 1B [a- Welcome letter dated Date of allotment letter Date ofapartment buYer agreement Possession clause as Per unexecuted BBA Due date of deliverY of Total sale consideration Total amount Paid bY the complainant ffi #N HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.6628 of 2022 1,6.02.2022 (Page 43 of complaint) 1,6.02.2022 (Page no.45 of complaint) Annexed but not executed "7.

POSSESSION OF THE FLOOR RESIDENCE: 7.1 Schedule for possession of the floor Residence- ii.

The Promoter assures to offer possession of the lndependent floor residence along with exclusive right to use individual demarcated proportionate terroce and basement area and one car parking space as per agreed terms and conditions herein on or before the ComPletion Time Period i.e' 37 Dec 2024 unless there is delay due to Force Majeure Event, reoson beyond the control of the Promoter, non' compliance on the part of Allottee(s) including on account of any default on the port of the Allottee(s), Court orders, Government policy/guidelines, decisions affecting the regular development ol the Project or due to any event or reoson, which is recognised as a ground for extension bY the AuthoritY.

AuthoritY." (Annexure 8 at page 17 ofapplication for lacine offacts by respondent 37Dec2024 (As per mentioned in the BBA) Rs.88,20,000/- [As per payment plan at page 49 complaint Rs.55,28,000/- [as alleged by I tn and pla ina nt mplaint the com 19 of co of her the brief facts at Page 3 of 18 HARIRA W* GURUGRAM Complaint No.6628 of 2022 same was denied by the respondent in its reply at pg.

26 ofreplyl t6.

Pre-Cancellation letter 30.07.2022 (pg.89 ofthe reply) l 17.

Cancellation letter 04.08.2022 [pe.90 ofre 18.

Occupation certificate Not obtained 1.9.

0ffer of possession Not offered 20.

Refunded amount The respondent submitted that the complainant paid only Rs.18,00,000/- + Rs,2,00,000/- to the resPondent and respondent builder has refunded the entire amount on 29.09.2022 and 75.02.2023 respectively without any deduction 27.07.2022 be.62 of complaint) 27.

Surrender/Withdrawal request made by the complainant through legal notice 3.

B.

Facts of the comPlaint l.

The complainant has made t}te following submissions: - That the complainant is a citizen of India and resident of house no' 67, Huda Plots, Sector 56, Gurugram, Haryana, India.

She had invested her entire life savings and booked a plot in the project namely "Smart World Orchard" being developed by the respondent within the territory of Gurugram.

That the respondent no.

1 to 4 are companies duly incorporated under the companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of construction and development in the real estate sector and claims to be one of the leading ii.

Page 4 of 18 rA- HARERA -.-@.* GURUGRAM real estate companies.

Respondents through its marketing representative approached the complainant advertising about the project in question.

The marketing representatives, for and on behalf of the respondents, made all claims with regard to the project and the respondent, and further lured the complainant for booking a unit in the above said project ofthe respondents. spondents.

That, Initially, the complainant agreed to purchase 2 units bearing no.

L- 3B and L-3C having 1120 sq. ft. each for a consideration of Rs.1,22,89,200/-.

The complainant paid booking amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in respect of each unit.

Later, it was agreed that the complainant will retain only one unit i.e., L-3B and payntent for both the units will be credited in the account of unit no.

L-3B only, berng developed in the aforesaid project and respondents promised the complainant to give him a custom payment plan of 15:85 i.e., 15 percent to be paid on booking and 85 percent to be paid on possession/handover of the unit.

But an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is still not credited in the account of unit no.

L-38.

That subsequently, the respondents vide intimation lor acceptance of application form cum welcome letter dated 1,6.02.2022, confirmed the allotment plot bearing no.

L-3B, admeasuring 1120 sq. meters in favour of the complainant.

That the complainant alleged that she made a payment of I1s.55,28,000/- in total including Rs.35,28,000/- paid in cash to the respondenrs, as anci when demanded by the respondents for the said unit.

Despite, after receiving l0o/o of the total sale consideration the respondent herein failed to execute any builder buyer agreement which Complaint No.

6628 of 2022 Iu.

IV, vi.

Page 5 of 18 HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

6628 of ZO2Z ought to have been executed in accordance with the provisions of section 13 Act of 2016.

Further, it is alleged that after making payment of Rs.35,28,000/_ in cash, that the respondent issued a letter datedzs.oz.2022 stating that the BSp was reduced from Rs.10,450/- to Rs.7,500/- and the total sale consideration was reduced to Rs.9g,20,000/-.

Also, the payment plan which was discussed at beginning i.e., r.5:g5o/o has not been adhered by the respondent. viii.

That the said acceptance to the proposal respondents, that there was no builder between the complainant and respondents. spondents. floated on the part of the buyer agreement executed C.

That complainant sent the legal notice dated 27.07.2022 ancr the same was replied on 05.09.2022 through her counser to respondents statlng that she is no longer interested to retain the unit in the said project anymore and asked the respondent for the refund in the same.

That complainant alleges there has been various deliberate, malafide acts and omissions right from the beginning at the time of alrotment of the unit, the terms and conditions of the agreement has not been made as per the payment plan discussed in the beginning i.e., 15 percent to be paid on booking and balance B5 percent to be paid on possession.

That there is a grave deficiency in service, malpractice and non_ performance of the obligations on the respondents part and even no builder buyer agreement is executed.

That there is deficiency in service on the part of respondents, as they failed to acrhere to their own commitments Relief sought by the complainant: The complainant has sought foltowing relief(s): Page 6 of 18 D.

HARERA GURUGRAM I' Direct the respondent to return the amount received by the promoter in respect of the alrotted unit with interest at the prescribed rate of interesL IL Direct the respondent to pay the earnest money along with litigation charges of Rs.10,00,000/_ (Ten lakh onlyJ to the complainant.

III.

Direct the suspension of License of channel partner ,,chaahat Homes Infratech private Limited,,.

0n the date of hearing the authority explained to the respondent/promoter about t],e contravention as alleged to have been committed in reration to section 11(al(a) of the Act to plead guilty or not to plead guilty.

Reply by respondenr(s) l.

The respondent(sJ by way of applications and reply made following sub miss ions:- Reply by respondent no 1 & 2 along with application of additional facts put on record dated 20.02.2023 and02.O4.ZO24 respectively That the respondent no. ondent no.1 & 2 states that the complainant has applied for allotment of an independent floor through her broker M/s Chaahat Homes Infratech Pvt.

Ltd. vide application form dated 05.11.2021 ancl paid booking amount of Rs .7,SO,OOO /-.The respondent company allotted unit no.

L-3B vide allotment letter dated 1,6.02.2022.

The complainant opted for specific payment plan (15:75:10).

The respondent has also acceded to the request of the complainant and transferred the amount paid i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- towards unit no.

L_38 in the project.

D.1 Page 7 of 1B Compfaint No.

6628 of 2022 rL HARERA GURUGRAM ii' That the comprainant vide letter dated u.02.2022, sentthree copie{ of the buyer's agreement for execution and raised demand as per the payment plan opted by the complainant. iii' The comprainant approached the respondent that the floor be provided in a bare shell condition.

The respondent acceded to the request of the complainant and the price of the floor was reduced from Rs.10,450/- to Rs'7,500/- per sq. ft.

Thus, the total consideration cost of the unir was reduced to from Rs.7,22,99,200/_ to Rs.g8,20,000/- plus other charges.

Thereafter, a revised allotment letter was issued by the respondent. iv' since, the complainant was not making payment of the outstanding dues and was not coming forward to execute the buyer,s agreement, the respondent issued pre-cancelration retter dated 30.07.2022.

As the complainant continued to breach the terms of apprication form, the respondent was constrained to terminate the alrotment by issuing cancellation notice date O 4.09.2022. v' That the complainant has paid Rs.1g,00,000/- against the outstanding dues of Rs.48,51,000 /-, and the respondent has refunded rhe entirc amount of Rs.19,00,000/- without any deductions vide R'GS IUTR No.

KKBKR52022092googoz41g) on zg.og.zozz.

Due ro some confusion, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/_ was lying in the suspension account.

Now, the amount of Rs. unt of Rs.2,00,000/- was refunded to the comprainant on 15'02'2023 vide RTGS (UTR No.

ICICR520230zrsoo3gszg9l..r'hus, rhe present complaint is infructuous.

D.z Reply by respondent no.

3 along with application for dismissal of Complaint vi rhat the respondent no.3 i.e.

Smartworld Developers private r,imited has no Iocus or any concern with the lis in question as it is a separate Page 8 of 18 Complaint No.

6628 of 2022 HARERA ffi.

GURUGRAM and a distinct legal entity, which has erroneously been impleaded by the complainant in the array of the respondents.

That the respondent submitted that the said project is part of the licensed affordable plotted colony under the Deen Dayal Jan Awaas Yojna, which is being promoted and developed by M/s.

Suposha Realcon Pvt.

Ltd., respondent No.

1 and 2 herein. ,,smartworld Orchard" is a RERA registered project of M/s.

Therefore, Mr.

Vivek Singhal who is the CEO of M/s.

Smartworld Developers Pvt.

Ltd. i.e., respondent no.4 herein has no privity of contract with the complainant on'aciOunt of the mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties. .

That the booking amount against the said unit was paid to and received by M/s.

Suposhaa Realcon Pvt.

Ltd., the promoter and the developer of the project and the application form signed by the complainant was also submitted to the M/s.

Ltd., It is submitted that no payments whatsoever have been made to the respondent no.3 with respect to the subject unit and thus no cause of action has arisen to make the respondent no.3 a party to the presentcomplaint ThatSection 31 ofthe RERAAct,2016 states that: a.

31.

Filing of complaints with the Authority or the adjudicating olJicer.-(l) Any aggrieved person may file a comploint with the Authority or the adjudicoting officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder, ogainst any promoter, olloctee or reol estate agent, a e agent, as the case may be. b.

Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section ,,person" shall inClude the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force. c. (2) The form, manner and fees for fiting complaint under sub- section (1) shall be such as may be fprescribed].

Complaint No.

6628 of 2022 vll. viii.

Page 9 of 18 lL HARERA GURUGRAM That the respondent no' 3 states that the mark'smartworld' is being used by the promoter M/s' Suposhaa Realcon Pvt Ltd' under a license from Smartworld Developers Private Limited' use whereof is subiect to the brand licensing arrangement between the M/s' Suposhaa Realcon Pvt.

Ltd. and Smartworld Developers Private Limited lt is submitted that there is brand usage arrangement between the respondent no.1 and respondent no'3' whereby respondent no'3 has granted the promoter a limited license to use the brand name' logos' image and other such signage, solely for the purpose of activities related to promotion/advertising (branding rightsl and allied activities for the said Proiect' That the sub)ect proiect is part of the licensed affordable plotted colony under Deen Dayal )an Awaas Yojna which is being promoted and developed by M/s Suposhaa Realcon Pvt' Ltd' i'e'' respondent no'1 & 2 herein.

Therefore, respondent no.3 has no privity ofcontract with the comPlainant.

That the booking amount was paid to and received by M/s Suposhaa Realcon Pvt' Ltd. and the application form was also submitted by the complainant to M/s Suposhaa Realcon Pvt' Ltd' That no payment whatsoever have been made to the respondent no 3 with respect to the subject unit.

Thus, no cause of action has arisen to make respondent no.3 a party to the present complaint' That the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chief conservator of forests govt of A P vs Collectors and Ors. t2003 [3) SCC 472 has categorically held as under: d. under: d. ln giving description of a parry it will be useful to remember Lhe distinction between misdescription or misnomer of a porty ond xll.

Page 10 of 18 lL ". .-.!_ ..r ,.t,Jil.| HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

6628 of 2022 misjoinder or non-joinder ofa parql suing or being sued. ln the cose of misdescription of a party, the court moy at any stage of the suit/proceedings permit correction of the cause title so thot the party before the court is correctly described; however o misdescription of a parQ will not be fatal to the maintainability of the suit/proceedings.

Though RuIe 9 ofOrder I ofC.P.C. mandates that no suit shall be defeoted by reason of the misjoinder or non- joinder of parties, it is important to notice that the proviso thereto clarifies that nothing in that Rule shall apply to non-joinder ofa necessaty party.

Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that the necessaty parly is before the court, be it a ptaintiff or a defendant, otherwise, the suit or the proceedings will have to fail.

Rule 10 of Order I C.P.C. proviiles remedy when a suit is filed in the name of wrong plaintiff. and empowers the court to strike out any party improperly joined or to implead a necessary party at ony stage of the proceedings.

D.3 Reply by respondent no.

4 along with application for deletion xlv. of name That the respondent no.3 i.e.

Smartworld Developers Private Limited has no locus or any concern with the lis in question as it is a separate and a distinct legal entity, which has erroneously been impleaded by the complainant in the array of the respondents, hence the name ol the CEO of Smartworld Developers Pvt.

Ltd. i.e., Mr.

Vivek Singhal has to be deleted.

4 submitted that the said project is part of the licensed affordable plotted colony under the Deen Dayal fan Awaas Yojna, which is being promoted and developed by M/s.

Ltd., respondent no. l and 2 herern. xv. erern. xv.

Page 11 of 18 HARERA ffi- GURUGRAM "Smartworld Orchard" is a RERA registered project of M/s.

Ltd. i.e., respondent no.4 herein has no privity of contract with the Complainant.

That the respondent no.4 in the present complaint is neither a necessary party nor a proper party and there is no privity of the contract in existence with the complainant herein.

That it is a settled law that a company is a juristic person.

Therefore, a company has to act through a living human being.

Collectively, decisions on behalf of the company are taken by the board of directors of a company.

An individual director or a CEO has no power to act on behalf of a company of which he is a CEO or the director, unless there is a specific resolution of the board of directors of the company giving specific power to him/her, or, where the articles of company confer such a power.

That the CEO of the company acts in a fiduciary capacity vis- A-vis the company.

He performs acts and duties for the benefit of the company.

The CEO has been authorized to perform certain acts on behalf of the Company and, as such, CEO of the company owe no fiduciary or contractual duties or any duty of care to third parties who deal with the company.

The complainant has neither made any averment against the respondent no,4 nor made any prayer/reliefagainst the respondent no.4.

That the respondent no.3 i.e., Smartworld Developers Pvt.

Ltd. has no locus with the lis in question and a distinct legal entify which has been erroneously impleaded by the complainant.

Hence the name of Complaint No.6628 of 2022 xvt. xvll. xvul.

Page 12 oi 18 /4, HARERA GURUGRAN/ Complaint No.

5628 of 2022 the CEO of Smartworld Developers Pvt.

Vivek Singhal has to be deleted. e deleted.

An individual director or a CEO has no power to act on behalf of a company of which he is CEO or director unless there is specific resolution of the board of directors of the company confer such power.

The CEO has been authorized to perform certain acts on behalf of the company and as such, CEO of the company owe no flduciary or contractual duties or any duty of care to third parties who deal with the company. xx.

The respondent no.4 is neither a necessary nor proper party and has been improperly joined in the array of parties.

Reply by respondent no.

5 to 8 That the respondent no.

5 states that complainant has without showing any cause of action sought relief against a company i.e.

Chaahat Homes Infratech Private Limited, but has failed to implead the said company as a party to defend its claim.

0n the other hand, though directors of the company are not personally liable, and there is no specific allegation or relief against the director, the complainant had made the director of the company as a party.

6 to B are not employees of the Chaahat Homes Infratech Private Limited, but are independent consultants.

Against whom there are no specific averment or relief sought but still have been impleaded as a party in the present complaint.

That respondent no.

8 being an independent agent worked for the complainant only to facilate the purchase and make it easy for them to meet the technicalities involved in the process of booking of a unit.

D,4 i.

It. l.

Page 13 of 18 fi- -i,*-,c WT HARTRA GURUGRAM complaint No.6628 of 2022 iv.

The respondent no.

5 to 8 states that the present complaint is infructuous as the refund has already been made by the respondent no.

1.

That the copies of all the relevant documents have been filed and placed on record.

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on the basis of those undisputed documents and submissions made by the parties.

E. lurisdiction of the Authority: B. hority: B.

The authority has complete territorial and subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for the reasons given below.

E.

I Territorial furisdiction: 9.

As per notification no. t/92120t7-lTCP dated 14.12.2017 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.

In the present case, the project in question is situated within the planning area of Gurugram District. 'l'herefore, this authority has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint.

E. ll Subiect-matterfurisdiction: l0.Section 11( )[a) of the Act, 201.6 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale, Section 1 1 (a) (aJ is reproduced as hereunder: "section 11(4)(a) Be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations mode thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale, or to the ossociotion of allottees, os the case may be, till the conveyance of all the aporcments, plots or buildings, as the case may be, to the allottees, or the common oreos to the association of allottees or the competent authority, as the cose moy be; Page 14 o1 1B ffiHARERA #- arnuennH,r Complaint No.6628 of 2022 Section 34-Functions of the Authority: 34(fl ofthe Act provides to ensure compliance ofthe obligations cost upon the promoters, the allottees and the real escote ogents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder." 11.

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 Iater stage.

F.

Findings on the relief sought by the complainant: F. ainant: F.l Direct the respondent to return the amount received by the promoter in respect of the allotted unit with interest at the prescribed rate of interest.

1,2. ln the present complaint the complainant intents to withdraw lrom the project and is seeking relief w.r.t refund along with interest for the amount paid to the respondent[s).

That the complainant was allotted a plot bearing no.

L-3B, for an area admeasuring 1120 sq. feet in the project named 'Smart World Orchard at Sector -61, Gurugram, Haryana vide booking cum welcome letter dated 76.06.2022.

The total sale consideration of plot was Rs,88,20,000/- and She made a payment of Rs.55,28,000/- in total including Rs.35,28,000/- paid in cash.

But, complainant can't produce any documentary evidence on record w.r.t. to entire amount paid.

13.

That the respondent promoter has denied receiving any cash component and has admitted receiving an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- against the outstanding dues of Rs.48,51,000/- and Rs.2,00,000 l- was paid against the expression of interest towards purchase of a different unit i.e.

L-3C which Page 15 of 18 lr} 14.

HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

6628 of 2022 was later requested to be cancelled by complainant and subsequently requested to transfer and adjust the amount in the account of unit L-38.

That the respondent has sent reminders letters for outstanding dues and execution of agreement to sell to the complainant on 17.02.2022, 23.02.2022 and 10.03.2022 respectively, but complainant has only paid Rs.18,00,000/- against the outstanding dues of Rs.48,51,000/- and the agreement to sell was also not executed by the complainant.

It is evident that the complainant has sent a legal notice on 27 .07 .2022, with regard to cancellation of unit due to non interest of complainant to proceed in the said project and asking for refund.

That the respondent no.1 who was not even the party to that legal notice has sent a reply to the said legal notice. al notice.

The counsel for the respondent denied having any cash component by the respondent.

Since, the complainant was not making payment of the outstanding dues and'was not coming forward to execute the buyer's agreement, the respondent issued pre-cancellation letter dated 30.07.2022.

After, considering the documents available on record as well as submissions made by the parties, the Authority was in the view that the complainant did not come forward to finalize the booking formalities and to execute the buyer's agreement.

Instead, the complainant through a legal notice made a request for refund of the entire paid-up amount on the account that the complainant is no longer interested in the said proiect way before the due date of possession i.e., 37.72.2024.

As the complainant continued to breach the terms of application form, the respondent was constrained to terminate the allotment by issuing cancellation notice date 04.08.2022.

That the complainant has paid Rs.18,00,000/- against the outstanding dues of Rs.48,51,000/-.

The respondent refunded the entire amount of Rs.18,00,000/- without any deductions vide RTGS (UTR No.

15. t6.

L7. lu Pagc 16 ol 1B HARERA ffi GURUGRAM Complaint No.6628 of 2022 KKBKRS2022092800802418) on 28.09.2022.

Due to some confusion, the amount of Rs,2,00,000/- was lying in the suspension account.

Now, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was refunded to the complainant on 15.O2.ZOZ3 vide RTGS [UTR No.

ICICR52023021500395299).

18.

The complainant needed to be vigilant before purchasing the unit and at this stage no relief can be granted in their favour for their negligence. 'l.he clue procedure of law cannot be allowed to be misused by the litigants.

Therefore, after considering the above said facts, the relief of refund is disallowed as the amount paid by the complainant has already been returned to the complainant by the respondent and the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits.

F. merits.

F.II Direct the respondent to pay the earnest money along with litigation charges of Rs,10,00,000/- (Ten lakh only) to the complainant.

19.

The complainant is seeking relief w.r.t litigation charges in the aforesaid reliel Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in civil appeal titled as M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt.

V/s State of IIP & Ors. (supro), helcl that an allottee is entitled to claim compensation under sections 12,14,18 and section 19 which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer as per section 71 and the quantum of compensation shall be adjudged by the adjudicating officer having due regard to the factors mentioned in section 72.

The adjudicating officer has exclusive jurisdiction to deal rvith the complaint in respect of compensation.

F.llI Direct the Suspension of License of channel partner "Chaahat Homes Infratech Private Limited".

Page 17 ol 1B 14.

21.

Moreover, 23.

File be co ffi HARE "-.e-" eunue Complaint No.6628 of 2022 20.

That the comp t is seeking the suspension of License of channel Partner "Chaahat Ho present comp even pleaded in e complaint. and for the sam That the com formalities and 22.

The complainan needed to be vi Infratech Private Limited" which is not even a party to the t and relief cannot be granted against a party which is not nsion of license doesn't fall in jurisdiction of this Authority competent authority may be approached by the complainant. t does not come forward to finalize the booking execute the b ent. stage no other due procedure Therefore, after nsid and the prese CO consigned to to th purchasing the unit and at this ur for their negligence.

The e litigants. being devoid of merits. lrile be can be f law ber Me \:? vt-- 7__ (Viiay Kumar Goyal) Member (Arun Kumar) Chairman Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram Dated: 09.04 024 Page 18 of 18 Kumhr Arora)