MAGANJOT KAUR vs REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

ffHARERA ffieunuennll BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Order pronounced on: 73.12.2023 CORAM: Ashok Sangwan Mcmber ORDER 1.

This order shall dispose of all the 4 complaints titled as above filed beforc this authority in form CRA under section 31 ofthe Real Estate (Regulation Complaint no.5927 of2022 and 4 others Name ofthe Builder Regional Construction Pvt.

Ltd.

Proiect Name Ekam S.no.

Complaint No.

Complaint title Attendance Harish lain and Gaur Rawat for Complain: Himanshu Singh fo Respondent 1. cR/5927 /2022 Maganjot Kaur V/s Regional Construction Pvt.

2. cR/s928/2022 Riya Saxena V/s Regional Construction h/t.

Harish lain and Gaur Rawat for Complain€ Himanshu Singh fo Respondent 3. cR/592e/2022 Satish Kumar Ahlawat V/s Regional Construction Pvt.

Harish Jain and Caur Rawat for Complain; Himanshu Singh [o Respondent 4. cR/ 597 412022 Sapna fain V/s Regional Consruction Pvt.

Harish lain and Gaur Rawat for Complaina Himanshu Singh fbr Respondent u rav nant for rav ant )r rav anl )r av nant fbr PaBe 1 ot 18 HARERA GURUGRAM 2. and Development) Act,2016 (hereinafter referred as,,the Act,,J read wjth rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rulcs, 2017 (hereinafter referred as "the rules") for violation of section 1 1 (4)[a) of the Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall bc responsible for all its obligations, responsib ilities and functions to thc allottees as per the agreement for sale executed inter se between partics.

The core issues emanating from them are similar in nature and th(. complainant(s) in the above referred matters are allottees of thc project, namely, "Ekam" being developed by the same respondent/promotcr i.c., Regional Construction Pvt, Ltd.

The terms and conditions ofthc builder. buyer's agreements fulcrum ofthe issue involved in all these cases pertajns to refund of unjust/arbitrary amount taken by the respondent/promotcr under various heads. ous heads.

The details of the complaints, reply status, unit no., date of agrccntcnt, possession clause, due date of possession, offer of possession, total salt consideration, amount paid up, date ofconveyance deed and reliefs sought are given in the table below: 3.

Pro : "Ekam" Sector- 05, So District Guru 8.1.1 The promoter agree and understand that timely handover /delivery of possession of the Plot to the Allottee and the handover of common Areas to the Association of Allottees of the Competent Authority, as the case may be, is thc essence of the Agreement.

Subiect to Force Majeure Event, the promoter shall handover possession ofthe Plot and the Common areas/services/facilities which are part of the Proiect on or before as per the date mentioned in the RIiRA Certificate.

1.

Completion cerffJricate- Not obtained 2.

DTCP License no.

55 of 2079 doted 08.09.2079 valid upto 07.03.2024.

Regional Construction Pvt.

Ltd. is the Iicensee for the project as mentioncd in 8.

POSSESSION OF THE PLOT 8.1 Schedule ofnossession ol Complaint no.

5927 of 2022 and 4 orhers // land schedule of the Droiect.

PaBe 2 of 18 ffiHARERA #- eunuennvr Rclief ught Refund of 5 responde Rcfund {,f trary taken by the Refund ol bitrary takcn bv thc heads.

5927 of 2022 and 4 others 3.

4.

Nature of Project- REi1 registrotion Residential Plotted Colony -38 of2019 dared 08.07.2019, valid upto 08.03.202 Sr.

No Complaint no./title/ date of complaint Reply status Unit No. and area admeasur i.g Date of executioIt of agreement for sale Due date of possession & Offer of possession Totalsale consideration and amount paid by the Complainant (s) So bitr the resl nt Rcfr unjr trar tak( the 1. cR/5927 /2O2 2 Ma8aniot Xaur V/s Regional Construction PvL Ltd, DOF.

07.09.2022 Reply 27.72.20 22 D-8, adm€asurin I 156 sq. vds. lpg.

35 of complaintl 21.07.2022 [Page 33 complain0 : I I Due date- 08.03.2025 Offer ol 07.12.202"1 Date of deed: 24.06.2022 TSC: Rs.

2 TSC: Rs.41,34,000/- fpage 65 of complaintl Rs-44,59,7 02 / . (page 42 ol reply) 2_ cR/592A/2O2 2 Riya Saxena V/s Regional Construction Pvt.

DOF 06.09.2022 Reply rcceived 21.12.20 22 F-77, admeasurin g 124 sq. yds.

IpR 36 of complaintl 24.02.2020 (Page 34 of complain0 Due date, 08.03.2025 Offerof possession- 79-04.202t Date oi deed: 29.O7.2022 TSC: Rs.35,34,000/- (pB.

67 of complaint) Rs.43,20,6461 (page 48 oi reply) 3. cR/s929 /202 2 Satish Kumar Regional Construction PVt, Ltd, DOF 07 _09.2022 Reply received 21.12.20 22 c-2, admeasurin s 115 sq. yds. [ps.

35 of complaintl 10.08.2021 [Page 33 complaint) Due date- 08.03.2025 0ifer of t9.04_2021 Date oi deed: 29.07.2022 TSC: Rs.33,92,500/- (Page 66 of the complaint) Rs.41,25,531/ (Page 50 or reply) Refr unjr bitr tak( thc resl nt PaBe 3 of 18 J/ HARERA Complaint no.

5927 of 2022 and 4 others 4 cR/s9?

4/2O2 2 Sapna lain V/s Regional Construction PVt, Ltd, DOF.

06.09.2022 Reply received on 21.12.20 22 B-32, admeasurin g 119 sq. yds. lpg.

35 of complaintl 17.12.2020 [pg.

33 of complaintl) Due date- TSC: 08.03.2025 Rs.30, offerof possession- 19.04.2021 [Page 6 compla Rs.37,6 Date oi conveyan(e ( Page deed: reply) 10.08.2023 94,000/- 66 of the ain0 63,294/- 44 of Refund ol bitrary trkcrr l)) tht.

Note: ln the table referrcd above certain abbreviations have been used.

They are elaborated as followsl Abbrevladom Full form DOF- Date offiling complaint TSC- Total Sale consideration AP- Amount paid by the allottee(sl 4. '[he aforesaid complaints were filed by the complainants against thc promoter on account of contraventions alleged to have been committcd bv the promoter in relation to Section 11(4J(a) ofthe Act, 2016.

5.

It has been decided to treat the said complaints as an application for non compliance of statutory obligations on the part of thc promoters/respondent in terms of section 34(0 of the Act which mandatc's the authority to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon thc promoter, the allotteefs) and the ) and the real estate agents under the Act, thc rulcs and the regulations made thereunder.

6. 'Ihe facts of all the complaints filed by the complainant(s)/allottee[sJ arc also similar.

Out of the above-mentioned case, the particulars of lead case CR/5927/2022 titled ds Mogonjot Kaur V/s Regional Construction Pvt.

Itd. are being taken into consideration for determining the rights of thc allottee(s) qua refund of the unrust/arbitrary amount taken by the respondent under various heads.

Proiect and unit related details The particulars of the project, the details of sale consideration, the antoLrlt paid by the complainant(s), date of proposed handing over the posscssiolt, delay period, ifany, have been detailed in the following tabular form; A.

7.

Page 4 of 18 ^/ GURUGRAN/ S.N.

Particulars Details 1.

Name of the project "Ekam" Sector- 05, Village Soh Sohna, District Gurugram, Harya 2.

Nature of the project Residential plotted colony 55 0f 2 019 dared 08.09.2019 07.03.2024 3.

DTCP license no. and validity status 4.

Name of licensee Regional Construction Pvt.

RERA Registered/ not registered Registered vide no.38 of 2 04.07 .201_9 6.

RERA registration valid up to 08.03.20 2 5 7.

Plot no.

D-8, admeasuring 156 sq. yds. [pg.35 of complaint] Date of execution of agreement for sale 21-.01.2022 (Page 33 of complaint) 9.

Date of allotment Ietter 02.r1.202L Ipage 29 of complaint] 10.

Possession clause 8.

POSSESSION OF THE PI,OT 8.1 Schedule of possessiol ol th 8.1.1 The promoter agrec and u that timely handover /de possession of the Plot to the Al the handover of common Arc Association of Allottees of the ( Authority, as the case may I nna, ana. 'l'e h sil valid upto 019 da tcd rf the plrit rd undcrst;rnd /delivery of e Allottee and Areas to thc he Compctcnt ry be, is thrl Page 5 of 18 ffi HARERH # e UnUennV Fo,npt.i,,t no sgzz or zon "no o otl,",.

CR/5927/2022 titled as Maganjot Kaur V/s Regional Construction Pvt.

Ltd. ffiHARERA *S* eunuennu essence ofthe Agreement.

Agreement.

Subj Maleure Event, the Prom handover possession of the P Common areas /services /facil are part of the Proiect on or per the date mentioned in Certificate.

11.

Due date of possession 08.03.2025 [As per registration certificat this authorityl 12.

Total sale consideration Rs.41,34,000/- (As per payment plan on complaint) 13.

Total amount paid by the complainant Rs.44 ,59 ,7 02 / - (As per receipt information on replyl 01.12.2021. [Page 70 of complaint) 74.

Offer of possession 15.

Completion certificate .1,8.07.2022 (Page no.

43 of the replyl ject to F'orcc loter shall )lot and thc ilities which r before as r the RERA B.

L e issued hy page 65 of page 44 of Facts ofthe complaint The complainant has made the following submissions : - L That the complainant was allotted a residential plot bearing No.

I) 0B admeasuring 156 sq. yds. in the project of respondent named "l.lkanr" Sohna, Gurugram under the deen dayal Jan Awas Yoina, 20lb vide allotment letter d ated 02J,1,.2027.Thereafter, a buyer's agreement datcd 21.07.2022 was executed betlveen the parties for a total salc Complaint no.

5927 of 2022 and 4 olher\ Page 6 of 18 MHARERA #* eunuenRvr It. consideration of Rs.35,88,000/- and the respondent has already takcn 100% payment from the complainant and has offered posscssion of thc plot vide "offer for possession" letter dated 0'i.'1,2.2021, even bcfori. obtaining completion certificate from the competent authority, n,hich is completely illegal and arbitrary on the part of the respondent.

That the respondents was in receipt of a sum of Rs.43,86,808/ bcforcthc execution of the builder buyer agreement which is clear violation oI Section 13(1J ofrhe Act of2016.

That the complainant was shocked to find out that the rcspondcnt company vide its Ietter dated 01.1.2.2021 titled as "offer of possession" raised unjust/ illegal/ arbitrary demand for Rs.7,98,808/- undcr various heads and a demand of Rs. and of Rs.72,894/- under the head of "maintcnancc charges" without signing of the BBA.

That the complainants tried to raise this issue of arbitrary demand with the executives of respondent company telephonically and informed thc respondent that they can't raise such demands without singing of thc BBA, but the response of the respondent was evasive and unsatisfactory.

That the demand of Rs.5,49,500/- raised by the respondent towards "EDC" and "lDC" is totally unlawful and the same is also in violation of RERA Act by the respondent while creating the clause of thc agrccnrclrt daled 21.01.2022.

That IDC was also waived off vide memo darcd I)l;- 27A/2700 dated08.02.2016 as issued by the DTCP, Chandigarh, llaryana.

Furthermore, there is no clause as per the allotment letter datcd 02.11.2021, which entitles the respondent company to charge anv lil)C whatsoever.

That the respondent company has further took a demand for Rs.1 4,1 (r0 / towards "prepaid electrical charges" which is also unlawful, arbitrary.

5927 of 2022 and 4 others III.

IV.

VI, PaEe 7 of 18 trHARERA $- eURUgnAU | ."."r'";nor*or2*,umoo*., VIL That the respondent also threaten the complainant that non-paymcnr ot the said unjust/arbitrary amount raised by it will lead to cancellation ol the unit.

Accordingly, the complainant paid the complctc paynrcnr including the un.iust/arbitrary amount to the respondent company.

Thereafter, the respondent executed the sale deed dated 24.06.2022 ii favour of the complainant.

VIII.

That the respondent company has failed to discharge its contractual obligations and failed on the assurances and promises made by jts representatives.

Further, the respondent has failed to providc thc complainant a copy ofOC/completion Certificate and has made an offcr ol possession without necessary NOc/clearance from concerned Covt. departments as per Section 11(a)(b) of the RERA Act.

RERA Act. 'fhar rhe respondent company has also breached its contractual obligations ancl not complied with Clause 2.11 of the agreement d ated 21 .01.2022.

IX, That the respondent company has also failed in providing ro tht complainant, a copy of maintenance agreement, whereby the responclcnt is demanding Rs.72,a94/- under the head "maintenance charges" to bc paid to one "Paras RE Facilities Management Pvt.

Ltd." without showing the agreement/documentary proof to the complainant. 'l'hereforc, rhc complainant is seeking refund the unlawful and arbitrary demand took by the respondent along with the interest @180/o till the realization of thc amount.

Relief sought by the complainant: C.

9.

The complainant has sought following relief(s): Direct the respondent to refund the unjust/arbitrary amount takcn bv il from the complainant under various heads against the unit.

PaBe 8 of 18 1/ ffiHARERA #* eunuennvr 10.

On the date ofhearing, the authority explained to the respondent/ promotcr about the contraventions as alleged to have been committed in rclation to section 11(4) (aJ ofthe act to plead guilty or not to plead guilty.

D.

Reply by the respondent 11.

The respondent has contested the complaint on the following grounds. i.

That the complainant has suppressed the vital facts of non-payment of entire consideration in terms of offer of possession letter dated 01.72.202L and on this ground alone, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. ii.

That the complainant is not a genuine plot purchaser or consumer and has purchased the said plot for commercial and investment purposes for which the jurisdiction of this Authority cannot bc invoked, since the object of the RERA Act and Rules is to protect the interests of the consumers and not the investors. iii.

It is further submitted that the complainant herself has been guilty of not adhering to the payment schedule and has made most of the payment after passing ofthe respective due dates. iv. dates. iv.

That the present complaint is filled prematurely as the duc datc ol the completion ofthe project is still not arrived.

Therefore, the samc is liable to be dismissed. v.

That the complainant is liabie to pay EDC, IDC and other statutory charges like any other allottee(s) as the said amount goes to the government.

Similarly, the respondent is entitled to pay one tlnrc additional charge, maintenance charges etc. in terms of agreement as these are service charges which are charges for the scrvices availed/to be availed by the complainant presently or in ncar futurc. vi.

That the respondent has received completion certificate for thc plotted colony vide letter d,ared, 1,8.07.2022 from the compctcnt Complaint no.

5927 of 2022 and 4 others Page 9 of 18 HARERA P.

GURUGRAIV authority and the project is already complete in all respcct.

Accordingly, the physical possession of the plot is already offcrcd to the complainant on 0 7.72.2027. vii.'l'hat the respondent has executed the registration of thc plot in favour of the complainant and has also delivered the physical possession of the plot to her in this regard. viii.

That the complainant has not been able to point out a singlc provision of either the Act of 2016 or the Haryana Real listatc (Regulation and Development) Rules,2017 which has been violated by the respondent.

Thus, the complainant is not entitled to any relief at all.

12.

Copies of all the relevant documents have been filed and placcd on thc record.

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can bc decided on the basis of these undisputed documents and submission madc by the parties.

E.

13. lurisdiction of the authority The respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction ol authority to entertain the present complaint.

The authority obscrvcs thllt i1 has territorial as well as subject matter jurisdiction to adiudicato th(' present complaint for the reasons given below.

E. l Territorial rurisdiction 14. iction 14.

As per notification no.

1/92/2017-1TCP dated 14.1.2.2017 issucd by'fo$,rr and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real l.:statc Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for .rll purpose with offices situated in Gurugram.

In the present case, thc projcct in question is situated within the planning area of Gurugram District Therefore, this authority has complete territorial jurisdiction to dcal ivitlr the present complaint.

5927 of 2022 and 4 others Page 10 of 18 1/ 15. *HARERA S-eunuennnr Complaint no.

5927 of 2022 and 4 others E.

II Subiect matter iurisdiction Section 11(4J[a) of the Act, 2016 provides that the promoter shall bc responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

Section 11(4)(aJ is reproduced as hereunder: Section 71 (4) 'fhe promoter shall- (o) be responsible for all obligotions, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules ond regulotions mode thereunder or to the allottees os per the ogreement for sole, or to the ossociotion of ollottees, os the case may be, till the conveyance of all the apqrtments, plots or buildings, os the case may be, to the ollottees, or the common areqs to the qssocistion of qllottees or the competent outhoriA, os the case moy be; Section 34-Functions of the Authorityt 344 of the Act provides to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the ollottees ond the real estote ogents under this Act ond the rules and reg u la tions mode the reunder.

So, in view of the provisions ofthe Act quoted above, the authorit_v has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliancc ol obligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to bc decided by the adjudicating officer if pursued by the complainant at a latcr stage.

F.

Findings on the oblections raised by the respondent: F.l Obiection regarding the complainant being inyestor.

17. estor.

17. 'Ihe respondent has taken a stand that the complainant is an invcstor rn(l not a consumer and therefore, she is not entitled to the protection of thc A( t and thereby not entitled to file the complaint under section 31 of thc Acr.

The respondent also submitted that the preamble of the Act states that thc Act is enacted to protect the interest of consumers of the real estatc scctor.

The authority observes that the respondent is correct in stating that thc /\( I is enacted to protect the interest of consumer of the real estate sector. lt is 't_6.

PaSe 11of 18 MHARERA S- eunuenRvr settled principle of interpretation that the preamble is an introduction ol ,r statute and states main aims and obrects of enacting a statute but at thc same time, the preamble cannot be used to defeat the enacting provisions of the Act.

Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that any aggrieved pcrson c.ll file a complaint against the promoter if he contravenes or violates any provisions ofthe Act or rules or regulations made thereunder.

Upon carcfrrl perusal of all the terms and conditions of the buyer's agrccmcnt, it is revealed that the complainant is a buyer and paid total pricc ol Rs.44,59,7 02 /- ro the promoter towards purchase of a plot in the prolect ot the promoter.

At this stage, it is important to stress upon the definition ot term allottee under the Act, the same is reproduced below for rcadl reference: "2(d) "allottee" in relation to o reol estate project means the person to whom a plot, apartment or building, os the case may be, hos been ollotted, sold (whether os freeholcl or leosehold) or othetwise transferred by the promoter, on.l includes the person who subsequently ocquires the soid ollotment through sole, transkr or otherwise but does not include q person to whom such plot, opartment or building, as the case moy be, is given on rent;" 18. rent;" 18. ln view of above-mentioned definition of "allottee" as well as all the tcrnrs and conditions of the unit application for allotment, it is crystal clear thar the complainant is an allottee as the subject unit was allotted to her by the promoter.

The concept of investor is not defined or referred in thc n ct.

As per the definition given under section 2 of the Act, there will be "promotcr" and "allottee" and there cannot be a party having a status of "investor". 'l ho Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 29.01.20I9 in appeal no.0006000000010557 titled as M/s Srushti Songam Developers Pvt.

Ltd, Vs.

Sarvapriya Leasing (P) Lts.

And anr. has also held rhar the concept of investor is not defined or referred in the Act.

Thus, thc contcntioll Complaint no.

5927 of 2022 and 4 others PaBe 12 of 18 ffHARERA SF* euRueRRHl of promoter that the allottee this Act also stands reiected.

Complaint no.5927 of2022 and 4 others being investor is not entitled to protection of G.

Findings on the reliefsought by the complainant: 19.

21.

20.

G.

I Direct the respondent to refund the uniust/arbitrary amount taken by it from the complainant under various heads against the unit.

In the present mattet the respondent has obtained completion certificatc of the project in question from the competent authority on 18.07.2022.

However, possession of the unit was handed over to the complainant viclc possession certificate dated 24.06.2022 and conveyance deed has also bccn executed in her favotr on 24.06.2023.

This is a very peculiar case wherein, the respondent has illcgally handcd over the possession of the plot to the complainant before obtaininll completion certificate from the competent authority and has evcn collcctcd certain amount from the complainant under various heads vidc of{cr ol possession letter dated 01.L2.2027.

Therefore, the said offer of possession cannot be held valid in the eyes of law. es of law.

The complainant has submitted that the respondent company vidc its lcttcr dated 01.L2.2027 titled as "offer of possession" has illegally/arbitrarilv charged an amount of Rs.7,98,808/- under various heads and an an)ount ol Rs.72,894/- was charged under the head of"maintenance chargcs" frotn tht' complainant.

However, the said amount was paid by her as the rcspondcnt had threatened the complainant that non-payment of the said amount will lead to cancellation of the unit.

The complainant is seeking refund of thc unjust/arbitrary amount taken by the respondent from her undcr varrous heads against the unit in question vide offer of possession letter datc(l 07.12.2027.

Seeing, various illegalities on part of the respondent in this particular case, the Authority is of view that the respondent should not be allowed to get unfair advantage of its own wrong.

PaBe 13 of18 23. ?4.

MHARERA #- euRuenRvr Complaint no.

5927 of2022 and 4 others 22.

Clause 2.1. ofthe buyer's agreement dated 22.07.2022, deals with total consideration of the subiect plot and the same is reproduce as under: - Terms 2.1 "Subject to the terms and conditions as detqiled in this Agreement, tllc Promoter hereby agrees to sell, transfer ond convey to the Allottee and Lhe Allottee agrees to purchasefrom the Prompter, Plot No.

D-8, admeasuring 156 squore yords ("Plot") for o totol price of Rs.41,34,000/- [Rupees l;orLy One Lqkh Thirty Four Thousond Only) ("Totql Price"), at the Rote oI Rs.

26,500 Pcr square yards, which comprises of: 2.1,1 Base price of Rs.23,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three l'housond Only) pcr squore yords: 2.1.2 EDC and IDC The findings ofthe authority on charges levied by the respondent vidc offcr ofpossession letter dated 01.12.2021 are as follows: EDC/lDC: The complainant has submitted that the respondent has illcgally charged an amount of Rs. unt of Rs.5,49,500/- towards "EDC" and "lDC" as the fccs on account of IDC has already been waived off by the DTCP, Chandigarh, Haryana vide memo PF-27 A/27 00 dated 08.02.2016.

F'urthermore, there rs no clause as per the allotment letter dated 02.1L.2021, which cntitl!.s thL' respondent company to charge any EDC whatsoever.

The policy parametcrs and provisions applicable under the Affordable Plotted Housing Policy 2 01 6 vide memo PF-27 A/2700 dated 08.02.2016 is reproduced as undcr for ready reference: 6.

APPLICABLE FEES & CHARGES: [i) Taking into accountthe foct thot a limited number of projects shol] be ollowed under this policy, the licence fees sholl be levied ot the following rotes: 1.

For medium potentiol towns: Rs- 1 lokh per ocre 2.

For low potential towns: Rs.70 thousand per ocre (ii) The scrutiny fees ot prescribed rates shall be levied. (iii) The Conversion Chqrges and IDC shall stond woived o[I. [iv) The bqnk guarantee to the tune of 2,ak on occount of IDW sholl be submitLed or the applicont hos to mortgage 7,ak sqlable areo. (v) EDC shall be pqyqble at the rqte ol Rs.70 Lqcs per ocre for Medium Potential Zone, Rs,7,5 Lacs per ocre for all the District Heodquorters Jalling within Low Potential Zone ond Rs, 5 Lacs per ocre for all other towns lolling Page 14 of 18 tr HARERA 1$- eunuennv within Low Potential Zone, The bank guqrantee to the tune of 25oh on account oJ EDC shall be submitted by the applicanL 25.

However, the provision w.r.t.

EDC has been amended vide memo no. l)lL 27A/2018/7 /22/2018-2TCP dated 05.12.2018.

The amendmenr in l)ccn Dayal lan Awas Yojana Policy- Affordable Plotted Housing Policy, 2016 is reproduced as under: Dnied -0i lr liltq Subj€d: Ame[dment in Deen Daval Ian Awrs Yoi.n.

Polic- Affordnble Plotted Houlrns Policy 2016.

In (c,1rtifintiorr of [le ],olicv irl<hr.liois i'slled vide llrerrro no Pf-], .l l r\1 .t"r-1 0.5.02.101b. memo no.

PF,9blPA(SNj/ 2017 i7 ll)01; \CP dnted rl;.rll.l0r; :rN:no l,r Irt liA,'-rl]g (iate{t 11.01. e{t 11.01.2018 alrd \terlro No.

PF,l7-{ ltll5 a I 101f. lT(P dnr..:l r,., , ',1. ,' , uUol:ned that the siid ]toli4 is iurdrer tuImded |urdel tle }.lovrsiorrs ot jht..ho L-1 ,rr rl- Hafv'ana Developorent and Regdatior oI Lrrban A.reas A.t.

1975 afld arrr other .orr$p(.ndirr.l ttatute golenrug develop ent oi AJfordable Plotted Colonv rurder Deeu Dnrnl t,ur ..\r. i ', ,.

L 2016.

The paunelt teu[5 of E)demal Developnent (hu{er 1EDC , l:1 ,..trr!ru: fnl.i'r .: torfia shall tr .ts 1urder' Sr.

No.

Zoe Rrtcs ol EDC tor DD!.AY I Hieh-l Potenha.l Zone: FdidalEd Ballabhgarh Urbai Complex dd SoIuE 75!t oi the alplcable rates ol Residenhal Plotted Colonv ur dre sa,rre iown li% lRovefl lEtore q,dfr .r li.eNe.ul.l L,,r].ur." !r | [nll vedlv urst.lDrerl.. r.,t\ u\te,"- | l HiqFtr Potelrtial Zone: Pancl*ula SoruparKndli Urban Coarplex drd 75q ol fie appli:able rare5 oI ResidmtiJ Plotted Colory rn the s&E town l:'" rea'olen' beto!. g,nnr., ll.snie .iftt td.ur(i ur r h"l1 ve.rlv arst.lolellts n'rth urter.!

I -l Medru Pototial Zmer 50i of tlrc applicabie raus oI R6idmbal Plotted Colory in the sa e tonn 25% r€(ot €fy belore gr.nt ot h.sl(e and Balm.e $ I h.rlr r'6adv mstnlalsd5 s:th urter !: i Lo\r Potartkl Zde: 5% oI tlre apphcable rates oI Residentd Plotted Col6v rlr ttle sa[r€ toh-n Corplete re(ovq.,' lElor e $ a.t oi hcerrce l. .{1I other }rolic! }'.I.xreters .!rd },rovisrorre ,lt Feljelrtlt .r}.|Li.rl,li r:rl.r .rlorerErltiorrd polic! dntect 06.01.1016. (i.rted l.l.ollols. .lated ilg il; l0l5 .rrd n! xncn.L..] :r : r. tune to lir[e. slrrll rontinue to relr.lir npp]rnt le.

26.

Therefore, the amount charged by the respondent on account of Il)C, if any shall be refunded to the complainant in view of the aforesaid lcttcr datc(i 08.02.20L6.

Further, the promoter shall charge EDC from th(' ItleDro No.

PF-27A, 1016, 7,'l2i 201&ITCP Complaint no.

5927 of 2022 and 4 others PaBe 15 of 18 MHARERA #- euRuenRvr Complaint no. plaint no.5927 of2022 and 4 others complainant/allottee as provided under memo dated 05.12.201U, on pro- rata basis in proportion to the super area of her plot to the total super arca ofthe project, subject to the respondent furnishing proofofhaving paid rhc same to the competent authority.

The calculation with regarrl to thr, proportionate share of the complainant on pro rata basis to be supplicd to the complainant within a period of two weeks and the excess amour.rt paid il any, shall be refunded to the complainant.

27.

Electrification Charges: -Thisissuehasalreadybeendealtbytheaurhority in complaint bearingno.

CR/4037/2019 titled as Varun cupta Vs.

Emaar MGF Land Limited wherein it is held that the promoter cannot char.gc electrification charges from the allottees while issuing offer of posscssion letter of a unit even though there is any provision in the builder buycr's agreement to the contrary. : - This issue has already been dealt by the authority in complaint title d as Varun Gupta Vs.

Emaar MGF Lond Limited (supra), wherein, it is held that the respondent is right in demanding advanct. maintenance charges at the rates prescribed in the builder buycr's agreement at the time ofoffer ofpossession.

However, the respondcnt sha ll not demand the advance maintenance charges for more than one ycar lronr the allottees even in those cases wherein no specific clausc. hars ltccrr prescribed in the agreement or where the AMC has been demandcd lor more than a year.

29.

In the present complaint, the respondent is demanding a sum of Its .72,894 / - on account of advance maintenance charges for a period of two ycars. lrl view ofthe order in Varun Gupta ys.

Emaar MGF Land Limited (supra), the respondent is directed to charge the advance maintenance charges [or n period of one year only.

Page 16 of 18 ffiHARERA lffi eunuenanr Complaint no.5927 of2022 and 4 others 30.

Electric, water and sewerage connection charges: The prontotet. prontotet. is entitled to charge the actual charges paid to the concerned dcpartmcnts from the complainant/allottee on pro-rata basis on account of electricitv connection, sewerage connection and water connection, etc., i.c., depcl]d lltl] upon the area ofthe plot allotted to the complainant vis-)_vis the area ol tht proiect, subject to the respondent furnishing proof of having pa id thc sn nre. to the competent authority.

The calculation with regard to thc proportionate share of the complainant on pro rata basis to be supplicd to the complainant within a period of two weeks and the excess amount pairl if any, shall be refunded to the complainant.

H.

Directions ofthe authority 31.

Hence, the authority hereby passes this order and issue thc following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted to the authoritv undcr section 34(0: i.

The respondent/promoter is directed to refund the amounr received by it from each of the complainant(s) on account oi IDC, if any, to the complainant(s). ii.

The promoter shall charge EDC from each ofthe complainant[sJ as per memo dated 05.12.2018, on pro-rata basis in proportion to the super area of their plot(s) to the total super area of thc pro.iect.

The excess amount paid if any, shall be refunded to the complainant(s). iii.

The respondent/promoter shall not charge any amount from the complainant(s) on account of electrification charges. iv.

The respondent is directed to charge the advance maintenance charges for a period of one year only.

PaSe 17 of 18 complainant(s) which is not the part of the buyer,s agreement or provided under Affordable plotted Housing p olicy,2016. vi.

Out of the amount so assessed, the respondent is directed to pay interest on the refundable amount at the rate of 10.750lo p.a.

750lo p.a. as prescribed under rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and DevelopmentJ Rules,2017 from the date of each payment till the actual date of refund of the deposited amount vii.

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.

32.

This decision shall mutatis mutandis apply to cases mentioned in para 3 ot this order.

33.

The complaints stand disposed ol 34.

Files be consigned to registry.

Haryana Real Estate Regultrlory Authority, Gurugrant Dated: 13.12.2023 k Page 18 of 18 trHARERA SeunuennHl I Complainr no.

5927 of 2022 and 4 other\ n) M