JYOTI CHAWLA vs GODREJ HIGHVIEW LLP

Mrs. fy Mr.

Ga Both HARERA GURUGI?AM BEFORE THE HAR'TANA REAI ESTATE REGULATORY AUTTIORITY, GURUGRAM ti Chawla n Chawla O: - PD-98B, Pitampura, New Delhi - 110034 Complaint no.: Date of filing: Date of decision: 495 of 14.02.

16.05.

Compla Respondent Respondent ,02",3 02:3 2,+ o.1 o,2 Versus Godrej High View LLP Regd.

Office at: Godrej One, 5th floor, P,irojshanagar Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli, Mumbai - 400079 Corporate Office at: 3,"d Floor, UM House Tower A, Plot No.

35, Sector - 44, Gurugram - 1.22002, l{aryana.

Aum Shri Hotels and Resorts Pvt, Ltd.

Regd.

Office at: E 3 /6 Model Town, New Delhi 1 10093 CORAM: Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal APPEARANCE: Shri Ranjan Sardana Shri Rohan Malik Counsel for the Complai Counsel for the Respon Me ber ants Ients der Iin ?IlrC tion oter ORDER 1.

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant/allotteesr u Development) Rules, 201.7 (in shorrt, the Rules) for violation of se, 11,(4)(a) of the Act whereinL it is irnter alia presc:ribed that the pron shall be responsible for all olcligations, responsibilities and functions u the provision of the Act or the rules and regulations made there und':r the allottees as per the agreement fcrr sale executecl inter se. n ./' 14/ P ageT ot27 Complaint No 495 of2023 der A.

Uni 2.

Th HAREt?A M GUI?UGRAM and proiect related details: particulars of unit details, sale consideration, the amount paid plainants, date of proporsed handing over the possession, delay , have been detailed in the following tabular form: the riod, co ifa Complaint No 4 of 2t)23 Particulars Details Name and location oI the project "Godrej Nature Plus", Phase- 1, Se Siohna, Haryana Group Housing Colony Nature of the project 1.8.744 acres 01 of 2014 dated 03.01.2014 DTCP License RERA Registered/ not registered 2,65 of 201,8 dated 30.01.2018 vali 30.01.2028 Ii-1403, on 14tt' Floor, Tower-F (Page no.

60 of complaint) Unit No.

2t 9 .03.2018 (Page no.

60 of complaint) Date of booking application form n5.05.2018 (Page no. (Page no.60 of complaint) Date of allotment it 5.06.2078 (Page 52 of complaint) ti.z Possessfon The Developer shall offer reasonably extended on account o the apartment to Buyer for apartment on or before 30th 2023 ('Completion Time Peri competition time period sholl Force Majure Event and/or (ii) beyond the control of Developer an of any default on the part of ('Extension Event) ln cose the Deve agents and/or (iii) due to non-cam on part of the Buyer including on unable to offer possession on or be, Completion Time Period for an Date of builder buyer agreement (i) any said June .

The stand sons t/or its liance ccount Buyer. per is sons Possession c PageZ of2l 10.

B.F 3. a) ffiHARERA ffi CLJRUGRAM Complaint No 495 cf 2023 other than those set out in the fore then on demand in writing by the the Developer shall refund the ar, received from the buyer along prescribed interest in accordance Applicable Laws.

7oing, )uyer, ounts with o the 1,1.

Due date of possessiorr 30.06.2023 (,As per possession clause of BBA a 71, of the complaint) page 1,2.

Total sale consideration Rs.

80,80,979 /- [Page no.

100 of complaint) L3.

Total amount paid by the complainants R.s.

25,90,786/- (rConfirmed b), the counsel fo complainant during proceedings) the 15.

Cancellation Letter 29.09.2020 (Page no.

135 of reply) 1,6.

Occupation certificate Irlot obtained racts of the complaint: The complainant has made the follow'ing submissions: - That the instant complaint is against the wrongful forfeiture of the e amount and/or refusal to refund any amount out of sum tot; <25,90,768/- (which is -3',1,0/o of the total cost of the apartment) pai the complainant and her htrsband ("allottees") to the developers fcrr I BHK apartment bearing address apartment no, 14A3, tower-E, ph having carpet area of 76.46 square meters, exclusive ilrea of 15.9B sq meters, total area amounting to 9i1,.. to 9i1,..*4 square melters in the projecI c as "Godrej Nature Plus" sitttated at Sector 33, Sotrna, Gurugram on pli a request for cancellation of the erllotment due to medical exigency her husband.

Page3 of2L tv rtire rl o,f dbv he ,2 ase-l uare alled rcing with ffiHARERA ffieunuGRAM b) That the allottees have bool<ed the apartment vide application fornr , 29.03.2018 by paying the booking amount of {1,00,000/- and the cost of the apartment is tB0,B0 ,979 /-. c) That the situations became worse in 2020 after the COVID-19 pand situation and due to various restrictions like on travel, work etc. an to this allottees all financial planning was completely de Complainant faced salary cuts and her husband's business li toppled.

These situations and uncertainties had further severely im her husband's health and now his health became first priority o complainant and thus, had to channelise all their resources to pro life and health. d) That for the above-stated reason:;, they were not able to make fu payments of the apartment to the rleveloper[s).

They brought these i before various concerned officers r:f the Developer and requested th kindly cancel the allotment and ref'und their money so that they can u thfls amount to save his husband'rs life through various emails and also shared medical recorils of her husband through various email this they submitted his reports and other medical documents from ti time however, all in vain. e) The developer had terminated /cancelled the allotment in Septe 2q20 and intimatqd the allottees vide email dated 30.09.2020 rega th]e termination wilthout any prior notice.

Even then the developer di rlfund any amoutrt to the allottees even as per its own calcula whatsoever.

The applicant, in search of relief, had also written a letter requesti refund of the funds to save life of her husband to the most respectr:d of Godrej group - Sh.

Adi Godrej and other senior officers - Mr.

Pir 0 Complaint No 495 ted tal mic due ilec[. due ilec[. llv ed the t his ther SUES mto ilise raVe For eto ber, ding not ons for head f 2023 Page 4 of 2^l jsha s) ffiHARERA fficllRUcRAM Godrej, Mr. famshyd Godrej and Mr.

Nadir Godrej vide letter 29.07.2022 along with even dated email.

The complainant had written anot,her / reminder letter dated 25.12. to the above-stated dignitirries of Godrej group seeking for thelr indulgence in the matter however, all efforts in vain and this tinre email dated 26.1,2.2022, marked to the husband of the complainern h) developer has insensitivgl'/, and outrightly rejected the request o complainant to refund the amount.

That as per relevant clausels flike 7.5, 9"3) of the apartment for sel developers should have given 30 days prior notice to the allottees b terminating the allotment follovved by refund of the amount deducting the booking amount.

However, no such procedure was foll by the developers and they had di:rectly {erminated the allotment an not return any amount to th e allottees. i) That in yet another violation of thre p have taken sum total of R:;.

18,56,503/- cost of the Apartment which amottnts to AFS.

This is in clear violation of section 1 i) The developers are also liarble to pay in with interest @1\o/o for the period starti actual payment along with adequate causing immense mental agony to the C litigation expenses of 1.2,00,000 /-.

C.

Relief sought by the complainants.

4.

The complainants have sought following re Page 5 of21 Complaint No 495 f 2023 terl 022 ind vide the the the fore fter wed dirC sions of the Act, the devel pers which is more than L)o/o o the nof { 8,08,097 /- before execttti of the Act. :erest towards the amount g from 13.1.1.2020 till the d mpensation of {10,00,000 mplainant and her Husban LIong te of - fo,r and ffiIIARERA ffieunuenA: i. pirect the respondents to refund the total amount paid i.e.

25,90,768/-by the complainants along with the interest @ 1,Bo/o fro relevant date. vant date.

Direct the respondents l:o not to adverse/ coercive step against tlhe apartment.

Direct the respondent to not to sell the apartment to any other pe Revocation/cancellation r:f the registration cerrtificate granted to project for contravention of prov,isions of act.

To impose heavy penalty on the developers under section 3B of the Direct the respondents tr: pay damages of Rs.10,00,000 f - for cau mental agony and delay in treatment of her husband. vii.

Direct the respondents to pay litigation cost of Rs, z,cto ,ooo / - D.

Reply by the Respondent No,1 5.

The respondent no.1 contested the complaint rcn the following grounds:- a) The Respondent seeks to state the foll0wing brief facts before rai objections to the pnesent co,mplaint.

The lcomplainant (co-allottee) al with her husband Mr.

Gagan Chawla (mril allotteeJ vide applicarion fr dated 29.03.2018 ("application form") applied for the allotmen t of a 2 residential unit bearing No. ll - 1403 ("unit") in the project for a totlrl of property of Rs" 80,80 ,980 /- (exclursive of taxes). bJ That after executing ttre aprplication form, respondent no.1 as prlr opted payment plan issued an invoice dated 30.03.2018 of amount 3,02,703/- towards the 1st rnilestone i.e., advancer amount (being par ii. iii. iv.

V. vi. the booking amountJ.

It is apposite to mention here that the said am Complaint No 495 Rs. the cancel the allotment and take complaint and her husband an any the n. the: ct. in8i ing ng rm HK ost the Rs. of nt Page 6 ofZL WHARERA ffiGURUGRAM was received on after a delaLy of 21. days i.e., after the erxpiration of th date. informed that all outstanding amount(s) carry a penal interest whic W$en again no payment was received, respondent no.1 was constraine seild a last and final reminder dated 25.09.2018 to the complainants wtiile referring to the previous reminder emails again requested due c) That respondent no.1 issued another invoice dated 09.04.2018 towards the Znd milestone i.e. stone i.e., wirthin 30 days from the booking of ;rmount Rs.5,60,886/- and again the complainant made the delay of 19 days to pa,g the requisite amount. d) Pursuant to that the rersporLdent no.1 allotted the residential unit no. e-1403 vide allotrnent letter dated 15.05.2018 ["allotment capturing the details o,f pricing of the unit and the opted payme Later, being agreed ancl satisfied with the terms and conditions of the complainant along with her husband executed the agreement on 27 .06.2018. be{ring letter"J, nt plan. the AFS for salt: e) Subsequent to the executiotr of the AFS, respondent no.1 as per ther o[ted payment plan issued another invoice dated 10.07.2018 towards th Jrd milestone i.e., within 75i days of the booking amount of Rs.

8,63,589.r)6 0 When even after the e:xpiration ol the due date of the 3'd milestr:n payment was receiverC from the complainant and her husband, respondent sent variours rerninders letters dated 10.08.2018, 13.0t1.2 26.08.20L8, and 10.09.2018 and vide the said letters requestr:d complainant and her husbzrnd to clear their outtstanding dues ar d per RERA is currently 2o/o a.bove the existing three year SBI MCLR ($tater Bank of India - Marginal cost of Furnd Based Lending Rate) from thre ter they fall due till the rlate of realization of payment by us along witl^r applicable GST @ l9o/o ron interest praid post 1st luly'17, NO the 18, the: lso as sl dto and the Complaint No 495 of 2023 PageT of27 ffiHARERA ffiGURUoRAM payments/instalments immediatel,/. h) In pursuance of the same the complainant and payment towards the invoice daterd 1,0.07.201,8 days. i) As the complainant and her husband were continuously mal<ing dela making the payments tow'ards e'very milestone.. respondelnt no l- email dated 07.01.2019, pre-intimated the complainant and her hrsl that the demand for the ne;<t milestone i.e., "completion of Sth flocrr r shall be tentatively duewittrin the next 10-15 days. j) Respondent no.1 issueri another invoice dated 01..02. ed 01..02.2019 towards t milestone i.e., on completion of completibn of the 5th floor of amoun 8,63,589.06/-.

With regarcl to the same when again no payment received from the complainant and her husband on time, respondent again had to send various reminrlers letters and interest letters 09.02.2A19, 20.02.2019, 25.02.201 9, 06,03 .2019 07 .03.20L9, 20.0',.:t.

27 .04.201, 9, and 02.0 6.",2019. k) Subsequent to that, again no payment was received from the complai and her husband, and du.e to thr: same respondent no.L was constrained to send a last and firral reminder dated 13.07.2019.

T aforesaid last and final reminder, the complainant ancl her husband the payment after an enorntous delety of 227 days on 04.10.2019 i,e. the expiration of the due date of 1.9.02.2019 incurring an intere amount Rs.

24,9 44.57 / -. l) On 13.01.20L9 and 20.01|2020 rtlspondent no.L issued demand le make her after husband madq a huge delay q alOng with an invoice towards the 5th and 6th milestone i.e., on compl of completion of the 10th and 1{lth floor of amount Rs.

8,63,589. respectively.

Complaint No 495 isite f 2023 Page B of2 1 the f68 sin vidre r?hd lab" 4th Rs.

WarS o. .[ ted t9, anl., ;ain thr: ade fter tof ters tion '6 / .., n) HARERA GUl?UGl?AM m)When again no payment was recerived on or before the due dates; aforesaid invoices from the comlllainant and her husband, respo no.1 again had to send various renninder letters and interest. letters 01,.02.2020, 10.02.2020, 10.02.2020, and 24.02.2020.

Due to thr: respondent no.1 was again forcecl to issue the Last and Final remi dated 20.03.2020 (Pre-TernnJ. u$on issuance of multiple reminders, the husband of the complainant e$ail dated 23.03.2020 informed the respondent due to some fina difficulty he is currently unable to make payments, and further requ to provide him time till April and he will clear all the dues by that time Er,ten after providing 4 extra months to the complainant and her hus to clear their outstanding dues, respondent respondent vide email dated 1-9.08. alain requested the complainant to comply with their obligations in t of the application form f agreement for sale including payment crf applicable interest on overdue payments and further requested complainant to provide the details of the payment if they have mader i After providing countless opportunities to the complainant, whe requisite payment was received towards the aforesaid invoices 13.01,.2019 and 20.07.2020 (due ilates were well before the out-bre COVID), the respondent terminated the allotment in question vidr: dated 29.09.2020.

Upon termination, the respondent fbrfeited the am in terms of the AFS, in,:ludi ng the delayed interest of Rs.

4,39 ,237 / - , of Rs.

4,25,1,68/- and the br,rkeragel of Rs.

6,30,686 /-. q) In response to the terminatlon notice, the complainant. sent an ema l 29.09.2020 and the same was rerplied to by the respondent vide dated 30.09.2020 and it was reiterated that the allotment terminated. o) pl Complaint No 495 of 2023 the ent ated me der vide cierl sterl nrl 021) rms ues, the nrf, aterl kof maiil unt CS ated mail Page9 of2l oorl r) s) t) E.

Rep 6.

The T d h a b d 2 th In rh HARERA M GURUGI?AM e complainant vide email dated 05.01 of termination and for the first time sband was suffering fronl some medi sons, she could not continue with the a complete refund of the amount paid. considering the reports of the ing various discussions with the 1 04.2022 informed the Complainant management and a revert will be sent pursuance to the same, respondent all the previous hir;tory and her husband and realis;ed that the -time defaulters so far as their llinanc e to the said reason, their allotrnent 20.

The complainant was also remind ons had offered solutiions to a,roid avail.

Vide the aforesaid email re payments which were receiverd pri re also received with a huge clela)r.

It plainant requested for refund r:n the rs from the date of' termination spondent was unable to accept the req by the Respondent No. ondent No.2 ndent no.2 contested the complai he respondent No.

2 is a compat:Iy reg 56.

The respondent no.

2 is the own a) 744 acres situated at Sector 33, Page 10 of2t in due time.

Complaint No 495 f2023 2022 i.e., after 2 years fro nformed the respondent tha I condition.

And due to the sairl allotment and further requ terl er mail tto ant are r, t0 ven SS the her : thr: .y of thr: Act, ring ring o.1 and the management nt ent records of the complai mplainant and her husban I obligations are concern and sep' as terminated way back in that the respondent on nrul iple is from happening, howev mplainant's husband and the Respondents vide their request has been se ent no.1 also notified th;lt to the diagnosis of the il noteworthy to highlight tha ealth conditions after a dlel In view of the aforesaid, est for refund. t on the following grounds: red under the Companie of a parcel of land admeas h?, Haryana.

The ans b) HARERA GURUGRAM respondent has granted and transfer to the respondent no.

1 on the entire p The respondents duly executed a devel tr per the deVelopment agreeme tfansferred irrevocable and exclusive Itlre project land to the responden implemented/developed and driven b aspects of the project inc)uding but no layout, aesthetics, marketing etc is bei The developer i.e., the res;rondent no.

1 sale rights.

The answering respondent has also Attorney [hereinafter "C;PA") rJated respondent no.

1.

As per pilra 27 <>f the right to negotiate, sign, exr:cute all buye agreement for saleT/ trernsfer, conv agreements or deeds.

It is submitted that as per para 7 of t respondent no. t has the sole ancl r:xclu all documents agreements which rvould The answering respondent bein13 the agreement for sale, however, the answ the negotiation of this transaction, Eve answering respondent's role i:s limi represented about the ans:wering res having given development right to the and conditions including that of terms, plyment, interest, construction, pos c) d) e) @4 the exclur,uu O, clur,uu O, jects rand. :veloPment fisttt ment agreement on t, the answering executed a General Po,ruer 22.09.201,7 in favour of PA, the respondent no. t ha ' agreements/agreement to nce/sale deed, lease/lic 22.09.201i, . respondent evelopment rights in respect of no.

1,.

The project is leinlg the respondent no. l- and all limited to quality, cost, design, done by the respondent 4o.

1. as the exclusive and irrevo(able of thr: thr: ell,/ nse te Development Agreementf thr: ;ive right to prepare and l'inflizr: le signed by the purchaser". and owner was a party to thr: lring respondent had no role irr r in the agreement for s:rle,l the :ed in recitals wherein it irs rdent being the land owner and ,eveloper.

All the material t{rm:s payment schedule & mann$r of ;ession, procedure for taking Page Ll ofZl 1 {d. ffiHARERA ffi--aJRUGRAM possession of apartment, lime is esse conditions of the agreement for sale is the complainant.

The allottees and the rerspondent n themselves and draft their respective d apree to any payment plan and refund rpspondent has never been a part of any l fs is evident from the above facfs, the a rnyhatsoever in allocating any flat or complainant.

Even the co,mplainant n complaint to the answering Rerspond money f booking amount, 7.

Copies of all the relevant dc,cuments hav s) record.

Their authenticity is not in dispu decided on the basis of these undisputed by the parties.

F. furifdiction of the AuthoFiry B.

The authority observes that it has terri jurisdiction to adjudicate the present,compl F.

I Territorial iurisdiction 9.

As per notification no.

1,/92/',201.7-L'[CP d and Country Planning Departnrent, Haryan Estate Regulatory Authority, G'urugram sha all purposes.

In the present ciase, ther proj the planning area of Gurugram d.lstrict. complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with F.

II Subject-matter jurisdiction Complaint No 495 of 2023 , etc all the material terms tween the respondent no. ondent no.

1 and and ,e n L/developer negotiate arjrong s/documents/agreements and of any payment.

The answ(ring such negotiation. swering respondent has no rolc" iving any money from the made any representation or regarding any forfeiture of been filed and placed on tht: Hence, the complaint cap bt: uments and submission nhade rial as well as subject *[' int for the reasons given ted 14.12.201,7 issued by T[wn the jurisdiction of Haryana f.eal be entire Gurugram districf for in question is situated withirr Therefore, this authority has; the present complaint. r t Page 12 of 21 0 11.

HARERA M GURUGRAM on 11[a)(al of the Act,, nsible to the allottee as duced as hereunder: Section fi@)(a) Be responsible for all obligattons, responsibili, of this Act or the rules and relTulations made ogreement for sale, or to the association of conveyance of all the aparanents, plots or allottees, or the common areas to the assoc authority, as the cose may be, So, n view of the provisions of the Act com ete jurisdiction to decirle the r:ompl obli de 1,2.Fu tions by the promoter leaving asi ed by the adjudicating officer if'purs er, tlhe authority haLs no hitch in pro a rellief of refund in the present nratt Hon'ble Apex Court in Newtech Vs State of U.P. a,nd Ors:." ,2027 wherein it hzrs ber:n laid rlown "86.

From the scheme of the Act of wt\ich a taking note of power of adjudication gra by 77.7 adjudicating office4 what finalty cull:; out is distinct expressions like'refund','interest','pe reading of Sections;78 and 79 clearly mttni, amount, ond interest on the refund o'mount, delayed delivery of possession, or penalst and authority which has the power to examine complaint.

At the same time, when it comes adjudging compensation and interest l:hereon adjudicating officer exclusively has the powe collective reading of Section 77 read with under Sections 72,74, 18 ana' 19 other than to the adjudicating officer a:; prayed that, in ambit and scope of the power. the power.c and functions of 71 and that would be against the mandote of Act 2016." Page 13 of21 201,6 provi per ergree that the for sale.

Online SC 7044 s under: CS )nt Complaint No 49 of 2023 and functions under the provisio nder or to the allottees as per th as the case may be, till ildings, as the case moy be, to of allottees or the competen uoted above, the authori has int regarding non-complian of be compensation which is d by the complainants at a ater ing with the complaint a dto in view of the judgement sed rs qnd Developers promoter sha Section 11[,,t) 'tailed reference has been made with the regulatory authority although the Act indicates t and 'compensotion', a that when it comes to refund of directing payment of interest interest thereon, it is the regulato and determine the outcome of a question of seeking the relie.,r Sections 72,14, LB and 19, to determine, keeping in view ion 72 of the Act. if the adjudica tion as envisaged, if exte r view, may intend to expond adjudicating officer under Sect be ) is te Otll {v toe refu G.

Findi l-3.

Hen Cou G.I. com 15.

The the CO This that the effo thei HARERA H GU|?UG|IAM , in view of the authoritative prono in the matter of M/s Newtech Vs State of U.P. and Ors. (supra), tertain a complaint seetrdng refund o d amount. on objections raised by the respo on regarding non.'ioinder of 14.

The respondent has raised an objection rej at the threshold for want of the that the booking and allotment of the me of the complainant as well ,as Mr. that the other co-allottee is not a party sub itted that to the best of the kno,wled atto ney has been filed on behalf of the laint is liable to be rejected on this co rtion that the compl;rint should ecessary party.

While it is true incl ded as a party and the lack of a po er the evolving nature r:f the compla take proactive steps by filing an applica m o of parties, thereb), including lrlr. ding lrlr.

Ch amendment demonstratr:s the compl I relevant parties are duly represen plaint solely on grounds of non-joi of the complainant to rectify tlhe init grievances.

Therefore, it is imprsrativ rties and proceed with the complain of Page L4 of 2L an t no.1 ry party. t solely.

Complaint No 49 of 2023 ment of the Hon'ble Sup me rs and Developers vate the authority has the jurisdi at the complaint is liable be ecessary party.

It is a mil rof e unit in question was nta agan Chawla.

It is also aclm to the present complaint.

It is of respondent no.1, no p0 the amount and interest o initially, Mr.

Chawla 'uva r of attorney, it is essenti nt.

Notably, the complainan n on 1,4.03"2024 to amen wla as a party to the comp nant's commitment to ens in the proceedings.

Disrni r would disregard the g,e I oversight and seek redr to consider the amended :ion the ine for m0 ein tted rof of not Ito has th,e int. ring sing id co-allottee.

Thus, the pr sent dismissed due to the absen based on its merits rather th G.II 1-6.

The HARERA S* GUI?UGI?AM icalities.

Therefore, the plea of the fore, not maintafinable. jection regarding no cause of acti respondent has raised another objec smissed for want ol'caul;e of action.

I rms and conditions of the appli lainant and her husband which clearl be the com righ to forfeit the booking anrount upon n not attributable to the respondent.

L7.

The assertion that the complaint lacks dismissed due to the forfeiture clause in critical aspects that warrant consideration. terms and conditions of the application fo of the booking amount in certain circurnstar ci rcumstances surrounding th r: can celllatio n 18.

The Complainant and her trusbancl ente tances that have since undergon events such as Mr.

Chawla's de of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The d the control of the complainant, re of the agreement.

Additionall,,z, it lainant herself initiatecl the r:ancel ting it via email dated 05.0L.2022.

5.0L.2022.Th cant change in circumstances ttrat led practicabilify of fulfilling the trerms d the complainant's control.

In light solely based on the forfeiture clause fundamental principles of equity and v ci unfo im term com f the booking.

Complaint No,l9 pondent stands redundan and n and abuse ofprocess n that the complaint is lia use of action and shoul be ks the application form overl hile it is acknowledged tha thr: include provisions for forfe ces, it is essential to examin into the agreement u der significant changes, inclu this regard, it is contented ion form were agreed show that respondent no.L ncellation of the booking fo riorating health and the ad extraordinary circumsta d it impracticable to fulfi is important to note that tion of the unit by for s action further undersco ould not only overlook rness but also disregard eto that the asa an"Y ture thr: ing rse CCS, the the al11, the: to the cancellation, emphasi in€l f the agreement due to rea ns; f this, dismissing the comp nl. the the Page 15 of21 HARERA GURUGRAM complainant's proactive stells to addres imRfrative to consider the entirety of th cantellation, includiqg the complainant's : resollution of the matter.

Therefore, the redundant and therefore, not maintainable.

H.

Findings on the relief sought by the com H.I Direct the respondents to refund complainants along with the prescri 19.

That the complainants booked a unit E- project of the respondent narnely, "Ciodrej area of 46 sq. mtrs. for an agreecl sale against which complainants paid an amo complainants intend to withdraw from the the paid-up amount as proviLded under t 1B(1) proviso reads as under: Section 78: - Return of amount and compe 1B(1).

If the promoter fails to comple,te or is apartment, plot, or building, - (a) in accordance with the terr,ns of the ,ag duly completed by the dote s,oecified tlherein; (b)due to discontinuance of his business as a de revocation of the registration under this Act he shall be liable on demund of the wi of the withdraw from the project, t lithout pre.iudice return the amount received by h/m in building, as the case muy be, with prescribed in this behalf including compe under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not inte shall be paid, by the promott.r, interest for over of the possession, at suc,h rote as may be 20.

The occupation certificate/part occ buildings/towers where allotted unit of th Page 16 of2l the situation.

Therefore, it is circumstances surroundinfi the uest, to ensure a fair and just plea of the respondent sdands lainants. e total amount paid by the rate of interest.

403, Tower-F, L4th floor iri the ature Plus" admeasuring c{rpet consideration of Rs.B0 ,BA,97g /- nt of Rs.

25,90,468/-.

Thai the roject and are seeking refu{rd of e section 18(1) of the Act.

Sec. tion unable to give possession of an t for sole or, as the case may be, oper on account ofsuspension or for any other reason, in cose the qllottee wishes to any other remedy available, to of that apartment, plot, at such rate as may be tion in the manner as provided to withdraw from the project, he month of delay, till the handing (Emphasis supplied) pation certificate oi'' thr: complainants is situated is still not wis Fu 21,.

22.

23. er, vide proceedings dated 26.10.202 sta at bar that cancellation/termination com BBA that may lainant and deduction ot' 200/o of earn ich was executed on ',27.06.201.8. he unit was cancelled after issuance (l HARERA M GUI?UGI?AM btained by the respond,:nt.

However to withdraw from the llroject. be allowed for the brokerage and earn t money as per para 20 of reply.

Tho gh the complainants, rvished to w dem nds refund of the paid-up pro ter/respondent in respect of the u inab ity to continue with thre projr:ct du husl The con act arose in cases of Maula Bux VS.

U and 736, rdar K,B.

Ram Chandra Raj Llrs, nd wherein it was held that forfeitu of ntract must be reasonable and iif for then provisions of section 711 of Contract par so forfeiting must pl. g must pl.ove arctual ent, the flat remains with the b'uilder all da in ge.

National Consumer Dispu '435/2079 Ramesh Malhotra VS. on 9.06.2020) and Mn Saurav Sanyal on 72.04.2022) and follov,ed in t Singhol and Anr.

VS.

MSM '.2022,he1d that 10% of basic sale p PageLT of2l o in Complaint No 495 f 2a23 the complainants have al ady , the counsel for the respon ent thr: per as been made on request o e counsel also emphasises t money has been made a 14 reminders and the declu on delayed payments thdraw from the projei:t amount received b1' it with interest on accou to medical conditions o , 1,872 are attached an is reasonable amount that tion and nuing with the project. est money on cancellation ion of India, (1970) I SCR Sarah C.

Urs., (2015) 4 of the amount in case of b ture is in the nature of pe ch amages.

After cancellatio s such [here is hardly an]'a Ity', thr: of Redressal Commis ion s ar MGF Land Limited (d' VS.

M/s IREO Private Li ited :/2766/2077 in case as on be India Limited decidtzd and thr: tof her ofa 928 SCC al HARERA GUIlUGRAM forfi ited in the name of "earnest money". do Re in the first two cases, a regulation latory Authority Gurugrerm (Forfeitu lations, 11(5) of 201.8, was farmed pr "5, AMOUNT OF EARNE!;T MONEY Scenario prior to the, Real Est:ate (.

2076 was different.

F'rauds were was no law for the same but now, in into consideration l:he judgetments Disputes Redressal Cammission and th the authority is of ttie view that the money shall not exceed more than 1 of the real estate i.e, apa all cases where the ,:ancellation of builder in a unilateral manner or the project and any agreement containi aforesaid regulations shall be void and 24.

Ad issibility of refund at p,lsscriberd ra are king refund amount at the prescri al paid by them.

However, allo and is seeking refuncl of the amo unit with interest at prescribr:d ra proj subj rul Rule 15 has been reprocluced ars und Rule 15. d Rule 15.

Prescribed rate of interest- [, 78 ond sub-section ft) and subsection (1)For the purpose of proviso to :;ection 12i; sectit ofsection 79, the "interest atthe rate prescribt highest marginal cost of lending rate +210t6.: 25.

The p Provided that in case the State Bank o.f In (MCLR) is not in use, it shall be replaced by suc the State Bank of India may fix from time to public. legislature in its wisdom in the su sion of rule 15 of the rules, tras d in The rate of interest s;o determin Page 18 of 2 t iding as under- binding on the buyer. of section 191 Complaint No 49 of 2023 eeping in view the principl own as the Haryana Real of earnest money by the bu lder) otions and Development) Act, out without any fear as there w of the above facts and taking Hon'ble National Consumer Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, iture .amount of the earnest of the consideration amount as the case may be in flat/unit/plot is mqde by the intends to withdraw from the any clause contrary to the of interest: The complai ant.s rate of interest on the a intends to withdraw fri) t paid by him in respecl as provided under rule 115 f the to section 72, section 78; and sub-sections (4) and (7) shall be the State Bank of India marginol cost of lending rate benchmark lending rates which for lending to the general rdinate legislation unde the rmined the prescribed ra by the legislature, is reaso laid tate unt the the of ble HARERE GUt?UGRAM and if the said rule is followed to arnrard practice in all the cases.

26.

Consequently, as per website of the State the marginal cost of lending r,ate (in short, is 8.85%.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate lending rate +20/o i.e., 10.85%.

27.The definition of term 'intererst, as define provides that the rate of interest charg promoter, in case of default, shall be equal promoter shall be liable to pay the allott section is reproduced below: "(za) "interest" meens the rotes of interttst as the case may be.

Explonotion. plonotion. -For the purpose of this clause the rate ofinterest chargeable from the a shall be equal to the rate of interest uthich ollctttee, in case of default. the interest payable by the promoter to the promoter received the amount or ony ,pdrt thereof and interest thereon iis refunded, and the promoter sholl be from' the date the a promoter till the date it is paid;" 28.

The promoter is responsible for all o functions under the provisio,ns of the regulations made thereunder or to the all under section 11,(4)[aJ.

Accordingly, thr: pro as he wishes to withdraw frorn the project, remedy available, to return the amount rec, unit with interest.

29.The authority hereby directs the promoter it i.e., ]Rs.

25,90,768/- With interest at the ra l India lhighest marginaf cost of lending rate Complaint No 49 e interest, it will ensure uni nk of India i.e., https:/ /sbi.

CLR) as on date i.e., 16.05. interest will be marginal c under section Z(za) of th ble from the allottees by to the rate of interest whic , in case of default.

The rele ble by the promoter or the allottee, by the promoter, in case of defautt, promoter shall be liable to pay the llottee shall be from the dote t,he till the date the amount or pa,rt interest payable by the allottee to defaults in payment to the igations, responsibilities;, of 201.6, or the rules tee as per agreement fc,r oters are liable to the allo without prejudice to any o ived by them in respect of return the amount receil, o.in, 024 st of Act the tht: anI nd nd ale ee, her the by of e of 10.85% fthe State Ban IMCLR) applicable as on Page 19 of 2I ate [A. ffiHARERA ffieunUGRAM +20/o) on such balance amoutrt from the actual realization within the timelinr:s p Rules 2077 ibid.

H.II Direct the respondents to pay causfing mental agony and dr:lay in treat H.III Direct the respondents to pay litiga 30.

The complainant in the aforer;aid relief is Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in civil Promoters and Developers I'vt.

Ltd, V/s nos. , V/s nos.

6745-6749 of 2027, decided on 77.7 is entitled to claim compensation under which is to be decided by the adjudicating quantum of compensation shall be adjud having due regard to the factors mention officer has exclusive jurisdiction to rleal compensation.

Therefore, the complainant officer for seeking the relief of compens;atio I.

Directions of the Authority 31.

Hence, the authority hereby passer; this diredtions under section 37 of the Act to cast upon the promoter as per the funr:tion section 34ffl: I.

The respondent is directed t,o refu 25,90,768/- aftQr deducting L00/o of t 88,88,01a/- bei[g earnest money al Complaint No 495 tpf 2AZ3 te of surrender till the date of ided in rule 16 of the Haryanil mages of Rs.10,00,000/- for ent ofher husband. on cost of Rs.2,00,000/- eking relief w.r.t compens{tion appeal titled as M/s Nt.wtech te of UP & Ors. (Civil appeal .2027), has held that an :rll{ttet: ons 12, 1.4, LB and sectioh 1!) fficer as per section 71 and the by the adjudicating officerr in section 72.

The adjudic{ting th the complaints in respe{t of may approach the adjudic{ting rder and issues the follor]ving nsure compliance of obligalions ntrusted to the authority u{rden d the paid-up amount of Rs. sale consideratiorr of Rs.

L the interest @ 10.8501i e total ng with Page20 ofZI 30.

Com 31.

File Da HARERA R GURUGI?AM p.a. on the refu date of realiza A period of 90 directions would follow. laint stands dis consigned to : L6.O5.2024 ble arnount firom t as per provisions u Lys is given to the in this order and of. stry.

Complaint No 495 date of surrender till the der rule 15 of the rules ,201. ndents to comply wi iling which legal conseque \,1- 2; (Vijay Kumar Goyal) Member aryana Real Estate Regulato Authority, Gurugram the CC:; Page2l of27