VISHAKHA BIST vs OASIS LANDMARKS LLP
Party Details
- VISHAKHA BIST
- OASIS LANDMARKS LLP
Case Summary
VISHAKHA BIST filed Case No. RERA-GRG-1707-2019 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against OASIS LANDMARKS LLP. The case has undergone 27 hearings over 5 years and 3 months. The case is currently pending. 28 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (27)
- 18MAR 2025Hearing
Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN
Detailed order will follow. Matter stands disposed off.
Stage: DISPOSED
- 11FEB 2025Hearing
Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN
Matter to come up on 18.03.2025 for pronouncement of order.
Stage: PENDING
- 19NOV 2024Hearing
Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN
The complainant has filed an application dated 16.09.2024, for rectification of proceeding of the day dated 09.07.2024, stating that the order does not reflect true proceedings of the day and incorporating it in any way whatsoever in the final order to be pronounced on 17.09.2024 and needs to be amended/corrected in order to reflect the true proceedings of the day, in order to be coherent with the principles of natural justice that ought to guide this Authority as per Section 38(2) of the Act. That, further the said order of 09.07.2024 though signed by Sh. Vijay Kumar Goyal as a member of the Authority was instead attended by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Arora and does not carry the signature of the latter rather the former and therefore merits to be struck of for not being signed by the correct bench member on that date, which would place the signed members of the Authority in Contempt of their own Court, leading to multifarious litigations and further action unless duly rescinded and corrected in terms of the correct proceedings of the day. The complainant has filed another application dated 01.10.2024, for audio-video recording for final argument/order under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with section 38(2) of the Act of 2016, and as per model rule for live streaming and recording of court proceeding published by the E-committee of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On the last date of hearing i.e., 08.10.2024, the counsel for the respondent wished to file the reply of the application filed by the complainant. Till date no reply filed by the respondent. The applicant was heard. So far as the issue of recording proceedings is concerned, the Authority is of the view that proceeding are recorded by the Authority to capture in brief, the relevant details and events that take place on a particular date of hearing and brief arguments which may be helpful to the presiding bench for maintaining continuity in the proceedings. They do not in any manner whatsoever express any final view of the Authority in the matter. The complaints are heard in the summary manner as provided under the Act of 2016 and are decided on the basis of pleadings on record as well as oral arguments of the respective parties. The complainant has filed the application under Section 39 of the Act of 2016 and it would be relevant to court the provisions contained thereunder: The Authority may, at any time within a period of two years from the date of the order made under this Act, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it, and shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties: Provided that no such amendment shall be made in respect of any order against which an appeal has been preferred under this Act: Provided further that the Authority shall not, while rectifying any mistake apparent from record, amend substantive part of its order passed under the provisions of this Act. It is observed by the Authority, that no ‘order’ as such has been passed by it and the proceedings in the present complaint are still continuing. Moreover, there is no error apparent from record which needs rectification of the proceedings. Rather, the applicant wishes the Authority to incorporate certain statements about the merits of the case statedly made by him during the course of hearing. The Authority is of the view that the parties are free to incorporate any or all such facts and averments in their written submissions which are taken on record of the complaint and duly considered while passing the final order in the matter. The parties are free to request filing of written submissions in addition to the complaint/ reply already placed on record, by serving advance copy to each other. So far as the presence members of the coram present on that day is concerned, as per record the cases were heard by the full bench headed by the Hon’ble Chairman and two members and the apprehension of the applicant that the record of proceedings has been signed by another member other than the one present is misplaced. In view of the above, there is no merit in the application submitted by the applicant under Section 39 of the Act, 2016 and the same is dismissed. So far, the application filed under Section 38(2) for audio-video recording of proceedings is concerned, it would be relevant to reproduce the provisions of Section 38(2),which are as under: 38(2) The Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Authority shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the same empowers the Authority to regulate its own procedure to carry out the purposes of the Act. As the complaint is being heard in open court, the Authority does not deem it necessary to allow audio and video recording of the proceedings as they are already being held in the presence of the parties as well as all persons present in the court. There are no restrictions on entry into the courtroom during the course of proceedings. In view of the above, the application filed under Section 151 of the CPC read with Section 38(2) of the Act of 2016 is hereby dismissed. Matter to come upon 11.02.2025 for further proceeding.
Stage: PENDING
Orders (28)
- 18MAR 2025orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 18MAR 2025judgementView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 11FEB 2025orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
* ilARERa *&-:rnrannv Oars l-and .rk\ l.l.P C/o ltl/s Godre, Properties Lim,ied Regd. office at: 3 i Floor, tlM House, Plot No.
35P, Scctor 4,1.
Curugram 122002.
Also atr Godrcj tshavan, 46 lloor,4A Home Street |orl.
Iqumbai- 400001 CORAM: ShriArun Kumar ShriVijay Kumar Coyal ShriAshok Sangwan APPEARANCE: Complarnt No.
1707 of 20tq BEFORI THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORYAUTHORITY, GURUGRAM 1707 ol ZO19 'lt.o2.zoz5 18,03,2025 Complalntno.: OrderreseBedoD: O.de. pronounced on: Mrs.
Vishkakha B,sht w/o Sh. chandu Kumar R/or-House No.935, Sector'3, Rohtak Haryana. l Chairman l Shri Ashish Sardana (Authorized representativc thltugh CPAI Shri Saurabh Cuaba IAdvoc,rte] ORDIR Ihe present complaint has been liled by the complainant/alloitee under section 3l ofthe RealEstate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 (in short, the Act) read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate [Regulation and Deve]opmentl Rules, 2017 (in short, the Rule$) for violation of section 11[4)[a) of th€ Act wherein ,t is inler rlio prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and Functions underthe provisions oftheActorthe Complainant ffiL1AIERA P*GURUGRAN4 Complrrnt No.
1707 or20t9 2 Rules and regulations made there under or to the allonee as p€r the agreement for sale executed irt€rse.
Unit and prolect related details The particulars ol unit details, sale consideration, the amounr paid by rhe complainant, date oiproposed handing over the possession, delay period, ifany, have been detailed in the followhgtabular form: ''Codr.j lcon" !.toE 8BA & 89A, Gunrgra m Name ofthe proiect Projectarea Re8ister.d v r ro 54 t7.48.20t7 License valid up to Allotment letter issued in iavou. oldr€ complanranr bt, Dit. of erccutron of buycr's aght 'rnr b.lrlccr tl,o .omplarnant and the 85 of 2013 datcd 10 r 0.2013 751 ot 2074 13.76ades 0.925 a.res Or B"ildh',mF Ors < n"'ldh.mc [i- D.0501,5u floor, tower D 1779 sq. ft (supor aroaJ 1257 sq lt (.aqrot rrcal I 28. rcal I 28.10 201s lPage 33 ofcomplaintl tl.t2.2015 lPase 38 otcomplaintl 4.2 The Developer shall end@vor to complete the construction of the Ap,ftn,t within 48 months (lor lcohic towet\ opadnenb)/ 46 tuonths (fot othet tower's aponnenrs) litn the date of issuonce ofAllotnent Letter, olong with a aruce penod of 6 donths orer old 30.04.2020 Ill Comol:int N.
1707 of20lq obove this 48 nonth petiod (Tentotive Completion Time ).
Upon the Aporhent bekg rcody lor possession and occupation the Dqelape. sholl bsue the Po$sio, Notice to the Buyer ofthe Apartment.
Due dare ofpossession Occupation ccrtilicat€ Surrcndcr/withdrawal requesr nade by the allo!ted throush email l Leeal notice for cancella liom date olissuanft oi 2410 2015 + ii monrh!
7?.
13 R\.1 37 ,21 , | 36/ Rs.57,71,105/.
JAs p.r soA datcd 01 07 2021 ar pasc 303 08.03.2019 lPae. tSl ofconda'trtl 29.03.2479 lPdBe 32s oI tuplyl 04 0u.2017 PaHo l500i.onrphidrl l. and rclund theentire pai anrount sent by B.
Fa(is otthe complaint l he (omplainant has made the fallowing su bmissions in thecomplaint: l.
I'hat the conrplainant was first mailed the projcct brochure and a c)nnnitmcnt ofhuge discounts and paynrent plan of20:20:60:20 were made, just to lurc thc unsuspecling complainantwho is an innocent housewife.
She ntrrtered all her liti savings and booked a 3bhk unit bearing unit no.
D0503 in the respondents IC0\ Project.
The complainant accordingly, gave the c.cque r!irh the bookrng amount of Rs.5 lakh unb.knownst to thc conrplainaDt drat the discourt (or more) thal was promised for'first 100 T.trl sal..nnsiderati.n Total amoult paid by the *HARERA 74 ti lrHARERI P" GURUGRAI/ other sops such as personal fam,ly achieving rertain targets in Violation dealers and consultants Ruleq, 2009, at 1olo ofvalue ofproperty.
I Thatthe bookingwas under 20:20:60 planwith 60% tobepaid atpossession as per thc commitment ofthe officials olthe respondent conrpany.
Post the signing oi thc application lor it lvas intbrmed (o rhc compl. rhc compl.rinant tha! lhe booking would bc under 20:20 40:20, which was not acceptable to the conrplainaDt and she after lots oi requests was able to get it changed to 10:I0 20:40:20.'lhe same was reflected in the application ib naswellasin the buildrr buyer agreem.rt That thc complainant has nradc the due payment oi Rs.9,34,872.60/ 0rayable withjn 60 days oi book,ngl th.ough cheques pe. statement ol r:couDt furthtr payment of 10% ofcost of property at 5 months ofbooking becnme du. b.ing an amount of Rs.14,42,135.60/ IV. 'lhat the conrplainant received an allotment lette. wherein the total nrle considcration was mentioned as Rs-l,37,27,436/-, wherein it was crlegorically mentioned that the bu,lderbuyeis agreement (BBA) has to be srgned within.l5 days and in casc it is not siSncd thcn the same shallc.lril crncellation.
Ihat the basic sale p rice of the a partmc nr was Rs.7,06,7 2,221 / rnd the PLC was Rs.8,89,500 /' and the respondent were chargingan amount o11ts.6,25,000/ for car parkinE which is not only illegalbut also usurious.
V Thrt the complainant signed and exccuted the builder buyer's agr.cmcnt lvith the rcspondent wherein the project land was clearly mentioned as of bookings of unit in the project in asents/brokers/channel partners and trips to personnel at such entities on of the Haryana regulation ofproperty thatlimited the aggregate commissio ns l GURUGRA[/ 9 359 Affes lhe buycr's agreemenr also clca.ly rtiputared that rhe Haryana A pa rtnrent Owncrs act shallbe applicable to rhe agreement and rhe cohmon areas shall be the ones as stated in the apartment owners Act The construction $all be complered within a period ol46 months wjth a grace penod oI6 nrc.ths there.rfter.
1r was lurther in prra 6.22 ivritren by rhc r'(spondent that they shallen(e. inro an agreemenr/shall execure necessary documents to help the complainant obtain loan from a Eank or a liinanctal VI Tha! the complainaDt reccrved a dem:nd lor 20010 ol rhc amount as is ro bc p. s ro bc p.rd at dre time ol complction of the super strucrurc.
1t is submirted rhat rlthough the complainant raised a query as to when the projecr hasjust been Launched how could the supe. structure be corrplered, the respondcnt threatened the complainant and stated that in case they wish ro retarn Lheir apnrtmert they would have to pay the amounrs as and when they are demandcd otherwise they shall be burdened with interest @ 18%.
The I.IARER Complaint No I70? of2019 complarnant hirving noother option paid theamount of lts.28,89,229.20l- as dcmandcd.l he custo mer executives thereafter committcd that nowth...xi vtl p.ynrent shall be due after about 1-1.s years fron now and they sh.rll be given smple timsto clearthesame.
That thc rcspondent thereaiter within 4 months ot having received the p.ynrent to!!irrds the complelion ofsupcr structurc dcnranded thc paynn'nl for the next 400/0 rrhich was !o bc madc at the tinre s,hen the fin,shing was completed i.c., whcn the brickwork and plaster work was completcd irr tbe cnlire bLilding. 'lhe complainant being takcn aback requcstcd lhe kspond.nt that dre), had connnitted that thc said pryment was to bc lrlde very ncar to whcn tbe possession rvould be offered and is the respondcnt company in a position to offPr possession.'lhe rospondent, respo.dcd by stating that they shall hand over the possession by the end of the next financial year i.e. by February-March 2018.
The complainant categorically stated that shewould be needing time till December 2017 to make the entire payment.
Ihe respondent stafed thattheyshall bewilling to give extra time, however not till December P017, ir was furrher communicated that the respondent company shallnqt le\,y any ,nterest and the complalnant should make thc paymentat the earllest.
That the complainant k.pt on requesting arrangjnB the funds.
The complainant on 0 F"dr,, N"r?ilro1rl time and stating that she is 1.2017 wrote a mail whereih VI II 1.0 shc rcqucst. c rcqucst.d the respondentto addthe nameof her husband in the bookirg i th.rt shr c.rn lake a loan jn her husband's name to pay thc installmcnt as w.rs due.]'hc harassment continucd thcrcaftcr as tlr. conrplarnant kcpt on rquesli!B lbr (hc docunrenrs to be executed tor namc addition; how.vcr ur sl)iteoirepcatcd req uests th e d o.uments wcre reccivcd by the complarnant .rltcr alnrost 3 months ofhaving placed the request. lhe said states ofalfairs ar. such that flrc r.spondcnt company told to thc conplainant to scnd thc documents n'ultiplc limes:rs well as kept on incrcasrng the numbcr ol' lirnralitics.
Th. conrplainant kcpt on requesting the respondent to add the nimc oihcr hu$and so sh.can takethe loan and pay the instalnrent. lX. 'l rat th. conrpiainant timc and rg.in in the month of,une, 2017 req!.ste(t thc respondent company to add the name oiher husband so that she could get the loan and pay the instalment. lt was also apprised to the respondent '.m,.J,J JBJ;n rhar I're GcT'ng.me i\ Soiri8 ro b. ;mplempnl.d rnd lhc already high cost olflat willget inflated which wjll cause unnecessary loss to the complainant.
Howev€rth+ respondent paid no heed to the requests oithe ffiHARER (S c DrnDr *HARERI gGURUGRAI/ complainant.
Even in luly 2017 w.ote respondent company ,o "lO ,n" nrrnu l:nmD rlni Nn 1707or20lq several mails requesting the of he. husband as.ll the \ xt got a prc-sanction liom the bank and provided the t.ipartite agrcenr.nt w h ich wrs ro bc signed with the ba nL and rhc respon d e n! company, however asked the complainant to get so many changes made, which were not acceprabl. to the 8ank.
Thar the IJtsA had cleady stipulated that rhe rspond.n( company would hclp w,th the execurion oldocuments and !roukl executexnyand all n.cessary documenrs to cnablcthc complainantsro avail Tiat thc complainant's requests had beeD falling on deaf ears when shc fi)ally lost hcr patience and she sc. nd she sc.t a marl on 04 0{l2017 requesring rhc rcspondcn( cornpanytokindlycnncel herallotmcntand relund hermoneyto h,r'.
That dre compl,rinant's hllsband had gotgrievously illand thus she was r) need ol moncy and was alrpadyharassed enough.
Tiat dr. complaindnt wrote nlany mails wh.rcin shc requested the r{pondlnt to refund h€r moncy and evcn pcrmitted them to forieit l0% of the llSP amount or Rs.10 Lakhs from rbe amount of Rs.57,88,368.40l- .lready dcposited by her and to refund the balance amount.
Howevcr the grccdy ol r.spordc,rl cohpany nart.d bl.ckDrai rf g t. th. conrplainrrl r|.rr docu mentation as required by it had been completed, in spite of rhe requests, the respondentcompany fail€d to add the name oiher husband.
She had even they shall levy heavy cancellatioD charges and shall cancel an amount in excess of Rs.45 Lakhs and thd balance moneyshall be refunded once the Bat is sold.
The respondent compiany neither cancelled the flat norretunded the money to the Complainant, i4 spite oamultiple requests and personal visits and in spite of the fact tliat the complainant kept on informing the ffiHARER, (.odoL tr r\o 17070rr019 6 Rtt tll.l respondcnt that her husband, the sole carning mcmbc. is g.ievously iU and shc needs the money.
Xll.
That lhe complainant having failed to get any red.essal of her grievances lrom thc rcspo Ddent was constra ined to her counscl A legalnotice was sent on thc complaiDant s hehall to thc rcspondcnt hcr advocate.
Xll1.
That the complaiDant thereafter got in touch with other buyers and it was apprised to her that lhe lnternal |inishing was ongoing on 06.06.2017 with no lurther updrte alier thal providing screenshol ofthe project's custonier portals coDstruction update iiature as proot and qucstioned why th.,10% Invoice towards Internal l'inishing was raised an entire year in advance whilc work was still u. s still u.der progress thereby forcing the conplainaDt to lvithdraw so that they could beDent from herwithdrawaland illegally usurp her nronry in thc nanre ollo .iturc, although theywcre notent,tled for the sanre.
Ihe complainant thereafteralso found outfrom RERAdocuments that the project whrch as per the BBA is 9.359 Acres is actually only 6.459375 acrcs, i...3 t0i less l.rnd.
Ihatthecol]rplainantihercalieralsoioundoulthat tlLc numlrcr ol units/llats in (he project had becn incr.ased from 358 to 6.,2, .nd the number of towers had been increased lrom 9 towers to 13 towers, thcrcby makinB material alterations and adversely affectingthe r,ghts olthe complarnant or thc project.
XlV.
That thc conrplainar)t also iound out that the respo dent had changcil the sanction plan sometime in N4ay June 2018 and had nol even informed thc complarnant about the same.
The letter ofthe respondent stating the change ,n s.rnctroD plan.
XV. 'lhat th. complain:rnt also fou,rd ou! that thc r.spohdent compan) (as demanding payment in clear violation of the lttlRA terms of license. l'he C.
4.
D.
5.
Ur the d.rte of henring, the authoity explained to the respondent/pronroter abour (he conlr.vetrlions as allcSed to have been commrtted in relation to scctiu 11(41 (al olthe act to plead guilty or not to plead guilry. complainant havjngfailed to get redressal to the,rgrievance having no other option beinga housewife is cqnsrained to initiate legal proce€dings against therespondentto getherlegdllyentitledmoneywhichisherlifesavin8s.
Relietsought by the complalnaFt - 1he complainant has sought follof,ing reliet[s]: l.
Direct the respondent to [eiund the entire principal amount of the complaina.t along with mo4thly compounded interest @15% or as per the RtjRAguidelines at 10% base rate plus 2% as perthe RERA Rules 2017 Replv by the respondent 'l'he respondcnt has conlcsted the compliinton the followinggroundsl r 'lhat thc conrplainnnt bookcd an aparlment with oasis Landmark LLIr in Lts proi.
Lts proi.ct nanrely Godrej ICON s(uated at Sector 8tl A and 89 A, CurSaon, ll.rryantr vide an application form dated 14.05.2015. l he total cost of the apart .nt u71s l\s.1,37 ,27 ,4361 wherein the complainant opted for .r constru.tion linke(l pla . ll is f!(her subni(ted lhat the tcntative d.rtc oi d.liv.rv wAs.t6 + 6 months from the date ofallotment letter which comes out to he 28.02.2020. 'lhat thc paynlent plan that ivas duly agreed and ncgotiated betlveen thc partrcs !!as clcarly cnumcral.d in the application lbrnr.
1n pursuant lo ihc sard application, the complainant was allotted an aPartment bearing no.
0503 on 5,, lloor in Tower D vide an allotment letter dated 28.10.2015. 'lh€re.fter on 11.12.2015,,rn apartment buycr's agreement was.rlso cxccutcd bctlvccn hoth th. prrtres. l'hc ,rppLication tor dated14.05.2015, the allotmcnt letter dated 28.10.2015, clearly stipulated and detined SHARER Z GURUGRA[/ trd"""rr."rr"] LADED lR '-[]1. '""'' '"r'',l'r earnest rnoney to be 200/o olthe cost (earnest money) which was meant t0 ensure performance, compliance and lulfilment of obligations and responsibilirics olthe buyer.
That as pcr c1atrsc 2.10 of thc buycr's agr.cmcnt c1..rly stipulated th.t in thc evcnt of non-payment of any installnent by the buyer as per the schedule of payments set out in Schedule VII ol the agreement, thc developer ls within its right to reiect the booking and treat the amounts paid tolvards part earncst moncy in vieid ol the dcfaLrlts committed hl thc 'lh.rt th. oasis 8u,ld llome Pvt.
Ltd. initially obtained licence no.85 of2013 on a contiguous land parcel admeasurjng 13.759 acres in order lo devclop a group housing rcsidential socicty in sector 884/U94, village tlarsr, u ol' Gurugr.nn.'lhereatter, vidc a dcvelopment agrccmcnt dated 22.0(1.2014, lhe development rights in the said i3.759 acres land was transferrcd by respondcnt no 3 in favour of respondent no.
2 ('developer'J. veloper'J.
That the developcr accordingly gol Toning plan and building plans approved lionr the conrpcteni authority r.e., DlCP.'l'he said land was to be developcd iI phases Damcly phase oasis4nd phase lcon.
Accord ingly, the developer first launchcd the phase Oasis thatwas to be developed on the land admeasuring 4.40 aff.s in rhc year 2014.'lh.rc.ticr, phase k on i!.rs launched thr'l $ as to be dcvcloped on the land admeasuring9.:159 aocs iD theyear 2015. [urher, iD the meantime, respondent no.
3 obtained additiona] license for rdditionnlland parccl admeas urjng 0.925 acres lrom DTCP vide license no.
151 ot20l.1ddted 05.09.201,1 and a secoDd dcvrlot)nrent agreemcnt \!as cxccuted oD 23.05.2018.
1herer|ler, the D]'CIr sranted in-principle approval ibr the rcvision oithe bujlding plan on 12.04.2018.
Accordingly, a RER UG?AI\ UR H G ComplJrnr No.
1707 o1201') 21J.05 20lU.was issued to allthe allottes and summariTcd thc proposcd .hanges which are enumerated below ior ease ofreference: / Instcad ofthe lower4-5, only tower 5 was to he constructedi i lowcr I I a dl2wer.dis.ard.rl' , Loc.ri'onol Nurserys.hoolwasshiftcdlromparc.l D.ltisnowproposed to bc dcveloped in placeoftower 11 12 in parcelC. ; A new towe14 willbe constructed in parcel D, a convenient shopping, 3, onnnunity buildins-3 is proposed for tower 5. - Itcv's'ons (ere made in the IiWS block 'l'hereaftcr, r nr.ctrng was hcld on 17 07.201U lvhere the objections lronr lhe allottccs ivcrc hcard at lcngth by DTCP.
I-hereafter, after following the due process oa the law, DTCP granted approval regarding revision ol the huilding plans on 03.10.2018 lt is submitted that the changes werecirried lbllowing the duc process of the law applicablc at tbc relevant tinr.. lt rs rcrter|tcd that none oithe ICON project land was uscd lo. p.oject OASIS as rlleged by the Complainant.
It is submitted that the said allegation is false lo the knowledge ofthe conrplaiDant. vi. iDant. vi.'l'hatthrrcrlterthc(leveloperalsoappliedlorichrng{roideveloperasl,er thc poli.y dirted l8.02.20l5. l he additional liccnsc r.quired the devclopcr to revite the building plans to incorporate the additional lands and ,r.cordiugly an application lor revision of building plan was filed on Z I 09.2016 That tlrc meerirg lvas held on 17.07.20I Il where the objedi!ns rlonr the allottees were heard at length by D'lCP.
Pursuant thereto, afte. tollowing the due process of the law, DTCP Srante.l approval regardnrg .cvision oltho buildils plans 'fheredllcr dllor lollow,ng Ih. due procers of lhe law.
DTCP granted rpprovdl resrrdinq revisroh ol the buildrne pl/n\ on 03.10.201a. lt is subm,ned that the build'nf plans were revised atter followins lhe due proces\ ol rhe lrw dpplicabl+ rr rhe relevanr time. lt is to be noted that upon viii HARER GURUGRAN4 l-a;;h.'N.r?otzore l incorporation olthe additional I'censed land, the developer was entitled to additional IrAlt and as such tle entire development oithe project is carried our strictly in consonance with thc sanctioned plans nnd approvals As per applicable laws, the additional |Alt can be utilized on the entire land ibr which licence is granted by D lC1,.
That rhere is no reduction ofthe land for ICON n.ithcrthc land that wdr n)ean! ior ICON has been used forany other proi.ctis$ronglycontcndcdbl thccornDl.in.nt. 'lhat thc said rcvision was doDe pnor to lhc cDa.tment of rel.vant provisions of the RERA.
It is aurther submrtted that while revising the l)uildint plans, the respondents had duly compli.d with all the applicable !rovisions and th. chan8es w.rc crn jcd out aftcr lollowing thc duc pn)..ss ol the law.
Thc rcvision in the building plans as per thc cnvironment norms .nd the.espondents havedulytaken the requlsite approvalfor the same. lr is rcrtcranrd dlat the respondents had duly conrplied w,th all the applicablc prcvisions and th. chan8cs were carried out lollowing the duc process 01 th. lnw.
1 th. lnw.
Pleirse note that init'auy thc company applied t{tiR iegistration in phases and oblained the lollowing certificates. .
RIill^ rcSistration No.s3 of2017 fo. phase Oasis. .
RIil{Arcgistrationno.50of 20lTlorphase1C0N. . lllilt^rctiistrationDo.54ol20lTlorphascl(IONIC(partoalconl. 'lhat upon pnrnrulgatio. oi th.
Real tistate Regulation Acl, allthe ongoinB prolecrs rlere to be registered with the state authorities i. a time bound manncr. l'lcase note as the compliances were to be done in a time bound manncr and ,luc to thc lack in cl.iity ol l.rw, lrhiLc obtainrng thc Rlllt^ .c ificrt.s, phase ICON [ircluding ICONI(;) was inadvertently showD as 6.45acres insteadol9.359 acrcs Similady,theland forthephaseOASIS was nndv.il.rtlv shown as 6.U acres instead of440 acrcs HARER GURUGRAIU l-4",,,p'-.. rb 1?0? "rro1, l 'lhat the respondent .ompany has taken steps lor the rectification/re- regjstration ol the phases (,i(h dle co.rec( phasing with conce.ned Rlllt luthority lettcr dat.d 07 07.2020 lll.d by thc rcsporrdcnt no.
1 beior. this Authonly, seekjng correction in the registralion certificate.
Ihat the i:onp.rny hrs taken steps lor the rectifrcation/re'registration ofthe proj.ct with concerned REIIA author ity. 'lhat !hc involc. l.llers dald 03.072015,23092015,03.03.2016 an(l l)1.08 2016 !v.rc ra'sed by th. r.spoDd.nt.
Thc respondent carricd out 0rc consn uction of the p.oject at a considerable speed and:chieved the initial (nstru.tion milesrdres way b.forc the due datc.
In pursu.rnt lo Nhich lnvoicc dat.d 01.082019 was raistd on compl.tion oI the constnr.tion MrlestoDe.'lhe respondent has tim€ and again scnt all the constrrction updates to thecomplainant.'lherespondent isdulyconstructingtheprojcct Ln a phascd manncr as pe. thc agreed lerms ,rnd conditiont oJ rh. 'lhat cv.n this has considered the outbreak ofCOVID-19 as a iorce majeure a,c.t aDd has extcnded the completion date or revised completion date or exlen(l(d conrplenon date automatically by 6 months.
6 months. lt is pertinont to ncntio. rhJt by dre barc pcrus.rL of th. facls, it s evident dr.'l lhe .onrplaLnant has no intention oinlaking the payment as assurance made by thc conrphinrnt nor the conrplainant is iDte.ested in taking possession oi thc flat o0 .rc(ourrt ot fa11 'n rh. nrarket priccs.
Ihat rh. .cs!ondtnt rriscd d.nrJnds strictly as per the paymenl pl.n agreed bcxlccn thc parties and only upon the completion of the agreed milenor)e Since the constriction was progressing at Sreat Pacc, the coDrpl.inant .omnnrnicalcd rts inability to i.rangc ftrnds as perthe agr.cd IiARER riL (U'r rA\ payment milestones.
Further, th e admitted vide Email (12.08.2016) written bythe complainant wou ld revealthat she admittedly was unabletoarrange tundsrspcr thc pacc ofthe s.hcduLed paynrcnt nllcstones.
The respondcn( rlso ofLred an intc.est frcc cxtcnsion to the complaint vide an Emaildated 16.08.2016.
The respondent has raised allthe demands as per the schedule agreed on the appLcation fonn 3nd the buyer's agreement. 'l'hat on lhe olher hand, Lhe coDrplainant abjcctly Iarlcd to fulfi1l its own obligat'on and lailed to mnke the timely payments thereby causing lremen(lous loss to the respon dent.
5he has violated its obligation under thc rpartn)cnt b uye.s agreenr ent to make payments as p.rthe demand raised aiicr complolioD ol constfuction milestones ind d.faulted in rnrking paymcnt ol iDvoicc of sun I1s.57,88,368/- as per stalement of accounts date.l0l.07 2021 and Rs.30,17,410/- as per statcment ofinterest. 'thatsincc the.oDplainantiarled to nrak. timely paynrcnis, thc rospondcnt w.rs cols(rxrned ro send rcnllndcr lctiers.
1'hc conrplainant who cnlLsed considerable delay in comptcting thc formality lbr changing the name aod rhc conrplanrant is now wrongly accus,ng the respondent for such dclay. 'lhrt ihc complainant requested fbr addition of her spouse name as co rllottee vidr . ur.,il dated 01 01.2017.
The rcspondcnt on 02. cnt on 02.01 2017 :;hared thc documcnt required tor lhe said purpose. lhereafter, shc faile.l to providc thc documents and vide email 08.03.2017 requested morc nn.
Lo provLde rh. sai.l documcnts.
The rcspondent tinlc rgrin request.d lhe conlphrrnl ro subm( lhe orgrnel docunr.nts horlever she kepl oI dclayinH m.h docunrents which can be seen lrom l'9.
118 oatbe complanrL 'lhe snd documentswere r.ceivcd by the respondent on 10.04.2017 and on I2.04 2l)l7 the addition of namo io nility lvas compl.ted. 'Ihat vidc cmail dated 01.01.2017 th€ complainant requested the rcspondcnt to .dd dre name ol coDrplainant\ spousc as co owner ol the unit to taciliratc the .omplarnant to take loan from the bank as the complainant is notable to make the payment ar demanded aitercompletion of nnrslring [Brick and Plaster work]. lt is further subrnitted that the rcspondcnt vrdc eDail darcd 04.012017 while fulllling his obligatkir ro .rssist the cornphrrrant to procure loan from the birnk accepted the request. 'lhe r.st)ondcnt lurther request€d the complainantto return the previously executeddoc!nrentsbetween thecomplainantand respondentandexccute r tresh sct ol documrnts. xix. 'lhat it nray nol be out of place to state here that non-payment by the complainanr resulled jn considerable nnancial hardsh' p on the respondents who had to ensure the progress of the construction without any interinl r8rc.d .onn iburion lrom thc conrplainant.
That the rcspondents havc no( only lost thc opportunity to s.llthe said flat to some other person, (at the tinre when Com plainant booked the flat) who would have adhe.ed with the lerms oI thc.onlr:rct and paid the entire sale considcration in timc.
1t is GURIJGRAN1 18.03.2016th I comptaintNo.
1zo7of zo19 lainant commdted defaults and violaied the asreed terms and the agreement.
It is lurther subm,tted that the complainant make the Dayinen(s accordinqto rhe (onstruction mrlesrone the payment i.hedule. i.hedule. lr is submrned rhat vrde email dated e respondent hfmidated the cornplainant that the milesto ne on conrpl.tion of Inlernal Plasterlrork" and shall be accomplished arotrnd (he third wecl( oiluly 2016 lt rs submitt.d rhat the respondent xfier complcting thc iinishing lBrick & Plaste, of Tower 1) raised a demand ol lls.57,61,776/ -- ARER l'o 'n ' ' to 'j"zo 'o'' t,J.U.,' ,\ submittcd that presently there isa downward revision rn the marketprjces and the id€ntical flat is now being sold at Rs.51,963/' per sq- metrs. instead ol lls.64.6tJ0/ per sq. nretrs. and .s srch there is a loss of 11s.20,9{1,20:i/- (Rs.12,717"165 sq. metrs.l. lt is subnritted that thc complainant is now lrying lo shiit the burden of losses on to the complainant by arbitrarily secknrg lhe relund olthe project. 'lhus, th. insl,rrt cohplrinL it Li.blc !o be disnrissed on accourrr ol conc.alnrcnt ol Draterial facts and documents, besides being vitiated on account of the lalse, vexatious and unsubstantiated allegat,ons levelled by thc cohplrinrDt.
It is rubmitted that there is no misrepresentation or violahons o1 any ruLcs oI20l7 nor that the complainant has suffered any loss attriburablc to dre respondcnt. xxi. lherefore, this Authority aiter taking due coEnizance of the preliminary other. l hat the unequivocally the are taken in alternativc and wilhoLrt prejudice to cach prehmrrirry subnrssions ir. statinS clea.ly rnd grounds for dismissal ol the instant complaint. may dismiss the presentcomplaiht [orthwithwith exemplarycosts.
7 (lopns of all thc ftlcvanl documents have been flled and placed on the rccord. l hcr authcnticity is not in disputc. llencc. the complainl can bc decided on thc b.sis olthesc undisputcd documcnts and submission nrade by the parties. {1. ]'hc r.spondent has liled an objecnon and th. reply of the same and writteD srl).Lissions b) bodr the par(ies along wrth thc documents for kin(l .onsid.ratio. oi lh. io. oi lh.
Authority, thc srnrr hxve belrn tirken ot record and hrs bcen considered b]- tlre authority lvhil. adjudicating upon the rcliefs sought by the ti. lnrisdiction ottbe authority HARER .r 'lhc Authority obscrves that it has territorial as well as subject nlatter lurisdrction to adiudicate the present complaint lor the reasons given below. [.]'rcrritorialjurisdiction r0. i\s pcr notiirr:.rrion no.1/92/2017 lTCPdated 14.12.2017 issuedbyTa||naN) Co lry lrlanning Department, the jurisdiction ol Real Estate Regulatory Aulhonty, (;urug.Jnr shall be entir'Curugram Dinrict lor all purposc with ullr..s siturtrd rD (;!rrgrrnr ln th. t)rcscnt (.rsc, (hc l)roled in questi!tr is srtu.rt.d wit|in the pl..rring area of Curugrnm District l he refore, th is audr ority h.rs conrplet, !en ilorialjurisdictionto dealwith the present co mplaint. li ll subjc(r hra urr ju.isdi.ti{i n IL S..tion l l [.1]{r)ol th. r\.!,20l6 provides that the pron)ot.r shallbe respo.eblc to th. rllotr.c.rs pcr agreeDreD! lbr sale Section lllal(r) is reproduc.d as [.1) th.rtnt)Lcr \hall !\r) t)e 'r\t\,^ible lt otl ntttilob.rs, rc\p.ntbtltr.\ and lunctions a tat tt)t ptuvtstons ol th6 Act at thc .ules ond rcltulaaont node therernderor to the oltaueet arperthe ogreemenr Fn sdle,ot to the fi.tatian olallattpes, ds the case noy be,till the Lanvcyun.ealollthe t po nknts, plots or butldth9s, osthe cosena! he, b the allanees, atthe t I r,t o I r' c u \ r. th. n [email protected] a I I o ttee\ at t h ! tun) pct ent o utha.i tr .\ rr. r J. dr!r€, secti on :] 4 - f un ctions ol the Au thoriE : talt.lthe Act prctides k, crsure c.npliance olthc oblgationscost rr.h ntu ptonoters, the oltotees on.l the real enotu asents unde. thk .1tL and Lhe tules ond reltrkxtan lode Lheteuhde.
Sojnvjc$or'thcprovisionsoitheAclquotedabove.theauthoritybasconrplctc iurlsdiction Lo d.cidc thr compl.in( reSa ing non corr'p11.rce ofobligatiors by trindingon the obiection raised by the respondent. ll Thc. t. ll Thc.€spondcnr raisedan obicction with rcgard to dismissal ofcomplaint whcD the CWI' is pending hrforr the Hon'ble l'unjab and Haryana lliSh CourtCDandigrrl wherci. thc Authority is also, party?
1? t:. tDl eDt urd rA (E ( ce , ,6r- -gl:1_I]]j]]: rhc respondcnt raised preliminary objection thrt the complainant has not apfrcach.d this iorum with clean hands.
The counsel for the respondent during proclcdingddred 17 10.202i1rlatedrharlhccomplrinanralonSwithsomeolrhc con$iner, srLbscqucnt to filing ofprcscnt complaint, hav. also filcd a civil wnt p.tition bctb.. the Ilon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court beanng no.
17120 ol 2020 titled .s Mrs.
Anita Sardana & Ore V/s State of llaryana & O.s., whcrc identicrl isnrcs have b!!cn raiscd lt is a settled la$ thrt ! litigant cannot be rllldled to pursue two remedies seeking sinrilar reliei on the same c.luse ol .tcrion. lt is prayed that present proceedings may be stayed ti11 the disposal ot l)uring pro.eedinit datc(l 17.10202ii, lLe said objectiorr was reiected b) the Arthority as the complainant has tiled the writ petition and consumer compLarnt lbr s(,eking difierent relieFas is sought in the prcsent complaint.
As far as reliel or compensation is concerned, the Authority has complete jurisdiction to de.ide lh. complain! rcgardrng non-compliance ofobligations by the promoter b.,ving dsLde compensation which is to b. decidcd by the adjudicatjng officer if pursued b) thecomplainantata laterstage.
Thus,the ptesentcomplaint is notbarred by th. priDciplc ol rcs sub judice and is maintainable.
Thus, thc application lilcd by tlrc r-espondr)r( nrking disnrissrl oi.on\raint stands also r cjecred. rindings on rhc r.liof\ought by thc (omplairanl. c.l Dire.t the rcspondent to refund the entire prin.ipal amounts of the .ompl.inants alon8 with monthly compounded interest @15y0 or as pcr the RERA guidelincs rt 100/0 base rate plus 2olo as per the R[:RA 'lhnt thc pr.scDt .onrpLaint wrs disu)sed olI vidc ordcr dirle I3.09. rle I3.09.2021, rvir/r ltt .litecttah ta the tespondent'As stutcd aurlier, leornetl counsellor conrto tunt \r1)Drttt:d .dLellaricol4, thot hn dienL situpb) @onts withdruwalian the prqect onl t.lr l.lhodnourt.ittvic\|alnli.ltatilicotior'thecanplatnt.tnhonds,jsthusatt.wctl.
13.
74.
G.
15. tlespondent 6 dttccted to .efund onount poid b! cohplainont till now The sane no! tAttlctupto 10% olLoLals.le consideraton, occardihg ta h.tilicaLian nentianed dbave.
At rcspondent fotletl to adhere to the dnectiansol HAlltlRA, (;uugram, the son]c is ditecte.l ta N! interest on soid otnouna t@ 950% p.o ltun the date ol sad naLficonan i.e-, 05.12.2018, till its rcolizoaan of onount.
The respondent is olso Lrrloed with the cost ol litigatioh ol Rs.50,000/- to be poid ta the comploihant .
ASgrieved s,ith thc sanre, thc ord was challcngcd by Lhc rcspondent no I b.lbr€ the Ilrryana Real Estarc Appellale 'lribunal, (:hindigarh and who vidc order dated 19.09.2022, vide whi.h the order dared 13.09.2021 passed by rhe A(lludicatinE Ollicer has been setaside being beyond jurisdiction and the matter rvrs remandcd b.r.k to the authority for fresh trial/d(ision in accordanco with Law So, i. pursuanl lo those drrectjon, both ihe parties put in appearance bclorc tlrc authoritv.
Ihercfore, the complaint is being deal with the authority, the .oNpl.rinrnt has simply prayed for directions for refund of the amount paid aExirst thc subjcct un't 1aJ ln briel, the casc ol the complajoant is lhat the rcspondcnt in its brochur.
Tecifically Drentioned that the project namely, "Cod rej lco n is beingdeveloped by llodrej Irroperties Ltd.
Under lhis impressjon as also the name suggests, that rh. strid projcct is a Codrej Project, the complainants inven.d iheir money in rhe s,rid project.
It is only upon siSning thc application lbrnr, they got to know that thc project is bcins developed by M/s oasis landmark LLP i.e., respondent l,..cinafter.
On 01.05.2015, ailer going through brochu. gh brochu.e, she booked a rrsidenti:l unit bcarinS no.
D0503 in thc said projcct She jnitially paid an anrount ol IIs5,00,000/"as booking anrount and lurthcr made paynrent oi l\s9.:.11,872.60/- on 28.07.2015.'lhereafter, respondent issued an allotment L{tt.r dated 28.10.2015 to the conr pl.rina nt, wherein thc respondent mentioned t- t ,€,.
I-ARER ,,. r, , i" r_o_.rro (-R,,]l lotnl sale conside.ation ol booked unit as Rs.1,37,27,436l'.
The buyer's agreement $,as execute.l between the parties on 11.12.2015 and as per clause I oi thc said BBA, the said protect r{as to be developed on project land ad|reasurjng 9..J59 ncrcs As per cLausc 4.2 oi the 8ll^, thc respondent agrced lhit constru(lion shall be completcd within a period of46 nronths, from thc date 01 issuancc of allotment letter along with gra.e period ol six months. lt is also aLleged that the respondent has raised every demand p.cmaturely in an arbjtt'..y m:'nner lvlrich is in der ogatron with thc paynrcnt plan agreed bctween thc prrties in the application lonn and the BBA. l.ufthcr, as pcr lhe maildated 17.04.2015 the respondent advertised the projcct as lor!-deDsrty dcvelopnrent and specifi cally nrcntioDcd thrl the density dr.llbc l.ss tIJn,l0 uni!r p(r Jcrc 1h0 r!spondcr)ts h.rvc urili'lcrrl1y chirD8..l lh. s,rn.tioned plan sometime in [.iay'June 2018 without informing the .onplainants.lt is also allegedthatas per BBA, the project was to be constructed ,,,9 il59 acrcsollandbLrtac!uallytheland is 6.459375 ncr.si.e 310/o less.livcn thc numbcr ol uniLs wcrc ircreascd korn 358 units lo 662 units and aln) (he !d!ers have increased from 9 to 13 without informing the complainants.
All thcsc hcts arc mentioned in writ petition beiore the High Court.
It is urgcd by .ouns.ltbrconrplainantsthatth.'i.clientisnotinsistingonrnyoltheplearn'sed b.lbre Hrgh Court. 'lhc cornplaDrant has approachcd this Authority serking relund ottheeniireamount pdid by the compla'nants as thcy wish to withd.aw 17. l.i. w 17. l.i. l"'rnrr Inqup\rrorwisalloll.dinhcrfdvourbltherr:pnndenr/promoro-^1 28.10.2015 vide provisio nal allo!m cnt letter.
Thereafter, the buyer's asreement executed between the parties on 11.12.2015.
As per €lause 4.2 ofthe apartment buycr's asreement executed beti+reen the parties on 11.12.2015, the possession .Irlr€ booked Lrni!was to bedeliveredby28.02.2020.'l'heoccupationcertificate lor the tower/block in queslion was obtained on 29.03.2019.
The complainant his surrend.r her unir rhrough enraildatcd 04 08.2017 thereafter, through leg.rl rotice (lnled 0U.03.2019, secking r.lund 01 thc pnrd up,r.rount with intc.rsr on Srounds rcitcratcd ir dre prescnt complaint. l9. l'h. r\urhority observes that the project was beine marketed in the nahe ol (io,1r,rt l)rop.rti.s ard rt has the logo ol Codrcj Irrof.rlics thus, luring th. conrplainant to book th. propcrlv. ll is nlso pcrtlnenl tr) nr.ntion here rh!r o8o or GodrejPn)perlies also appearson thefirst pageofthe Buy.r's agreemenl llv diurlioning the namcand logo of God rej Propcrtics on thc brochure & BBA irnd tILr n.me 01 (;odrcj in th. nam. of the project, the rcspondents have tncd to rrrkc an inrpression upon thc public at largc tbat th. srid project is t)cing nr.r <.t.dand dev.loped hyCodrctl)operties.
Iru rther, it N of grave 'mporlir nce th,rt the respondent through email sated 17.04.2015, the respondent has ,(lioliscd thc prcj.ct Js low-densitv devclopment and spccifically mentioncd lli,Lt lhr dcrsrty sh.ll b. less than 10 unrLs t)er rcrc (:ira) urits rn 9.1 Acr.l Nol onl) lhis,lhc Godr.i hope.ti.s havc also issued a prcss rclease on 21.05 2015 srrting that rhe 6odr4 Properties sells entite launched inventory at Godrej Itot, il Gurgao and the same also states lor lu(hc nfornration plcasc contrctr Ilr Ajay frwrr, Sr., Cercful Manager (Coipor,Jto Communjcir!onsl. wherein it h.s heen held as under: ''s3 Thot eve.
Thot eve. the terns ol the agreenqt to sole or hone buyets agrenent invotiabl! indicotes the intention of the developer that ony subkqueat {iodrel l,rop.rties l,in)itcd.Through Jtorcsard falsc statcmcDts, the.espondenis Iniluenced e allottees decision to purchase a unit in the atbresaid proiect 20. ll.r. thcAuthorityrefcrtotheordersofthellon'bleApe!Courtinthecrseol Nawtech PromoLers and Devektpers Ptivute Limite.i t's State olU.P and Ors.
GURUGRA[/ )1 " 12.
Obligations ol pronoter regdftling e.elty ol the advertisehent or Ll/h.r. ur! pet\an n)ake: dn utwn.e.r n depet.n th. ho:k DJ n1c hlrn aron onn nctl n) Ltu rtuLnr ulrtrtt!.ncnL ot ptn\pectus, or an Lht t)ur\.lur r \t.luportnerL pn)L ot hu)ldhs,o: Lhe.a\e tnny be,ahd susrarr a n I 16 t o t.l a n)a 4. b! rca {D.
I a n!
I n.attcct, I o lse natenc" t t n.
I u dcd thercnt, he\hullbeconpentutedb,thepra oter in the nonner osptovtded undet tha ta aftled LlnL i lthc pe^on allct t d by iLh lnunrcd, fu lsc stutenent conto etl t th. norL. odtnQ tert .t t)t$pe.L6, at th! r)tltl .pannent, plot .t btikhnlt, nsLhc.asetnd! he nttends Lo wthdraw Jront the proposed ptojecl, he \hdl h. ftturned his e titp wetnnent olong eirlt itnerest at su.h rote as Dny be prcscribed an.l the o r)cn\otion n the Danner prcrtaed undrt REJ ta..d"*r.rro, "rr",, lagitottun, rule: an.l restldbntctL ^sued bt, conlpctcnL dtthaiteswillbe btndntg an the pdfies 1[../d,s.r hove mposed the oppli.ability al sr b requen t leg lsl u tian s to be a p phco b I c o n d b nd i n g o n th e f a t bule t/ o I lotte e and etthet of the potttes, pronoters/hone bule6 ot ollaxees, cannat shtrk fio theitrctponsibititiei/liobnttes undertheActond rnplies thenchollenge ta lhe vtulottun ol thc ptovkion\ ol the Act ohd n neltotes the canEnnon odvonrcn bytheuppellontsteodt.lntg conioctuoI ternsha nIanove.ridino elJctL to Lhc tettuspe.Lve oA)t!cthttiralthe Authotitt, undu thc pravisions ar' .
A-. a .
1,.. ^nt|. -.1) .. p. t\., t.d dp\4... - pl.,..on 54. .,..on 54. l-tu the scheme althe Act 2016, its opplication is tctraactive in choroctet ohn .an lofel! be aberved tltat the prqecB otteady tunptete.t urto whtch the ta'npletion.etificate hos been gronte.t ore tut un.tet its fold ond thetelbr, rene.t.t ocnu.d rishts, ilonr, tn no nonnet ore alfected.
At rhe tunrc tine, it||illrppl),ulier dextng the onpontg prct46rhd luttre prcje.t\ t.tisL.ted Lnttat Sauor 3 tn ptospentvely fu|1o|| nte nandote ofthe A.t Accordingly, dle Authority observes that the said representation of marketing thc p.oject by Godrct properties rn the brochure, BBA, emaildated 17.04.2015 Jnd press releasc anrounts to nns-rcprpsentation on parr ol respondents.
5ince, in tfu present nratter, the complainant ls seeking refund being atiected by such in.orrect, false statement contained in the advertisement or brochure, thercfor. thc complainant is entitlcd for full refund along with intcr.st under provEo to loctrorr l2 ol tlre Act,20l6 at su(h lrtc as may be prrscrbed.
Section l2 ol tbe ^ct,2016 is rcproduced as undertor ready referencer HARERA P, GURUGRAI\/ 22.
It is further revealed that the building plans of the project oithe allottees were Eot revised by the .espondents on 03.10.2018, after the coming iDto operation ol Act, 2016.
The Authority is of the view that the respondent as violated the provisions oi Section 14[2](ii) of the Act, 2016 which prohibits alterations/additions in the sanctioned plans,layout plans and specifications oi thc buildings or the common areas within the p.o)ect lvithout the previous written consent otat least t$o thlrds ofthe allollees.'l hcrc is nothing on record io corroborate that the .espondent/promoter sought the coDsent of the conrplainant/allottee for such revision in the buildingplan.
23.
In vieiv ol the submissions made by the parties and fact on record as well as arguments ot the respective parties, the Authority holds the respondent responsible ror violations under Seclions 12 and 14 (2)(ii) otthe Act, 2016 and h 2016 and hcreby directs the respondents'promoters to returnthe entire amountreceived by it with inlerest rt the rate of 11.100/o (the state Bank of lndia highest marginal cosl orlendins rate (l\'ICLR) applicable as on datc +2%l as prescribed under rule 15 oithe Ilaryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,2017 tronr the date of each paymeDt rill t4e aciual realizatjon of the amouDt wlthin the timelines provided in rule 16 of,the Haryana Rules 2017 ibid' H.
Di.ections ofthe Authority 24.
Hence,the authon ty hereby passes thisorderand issuesthe iollowing directio ns und({ section 37 olthe Act to ensure compliance of obligat,ons cast upon thc pronroter as per thefunction entrusted to the authority undersection 34(i): i The respondent is directed to refund the paid_up amount of Rs.s7,71,105/_ paid by the complainant along with prescribed ratc ol interest @ 11.10% p.a as prescribed under rule 15 olthe Haryana Real listare (ltegulation & Devel payment till the date ofretu 25.
26.
Complaint as well as application I:ilcs be consigned t0 the regist (Ashok San directions given in this orde A per,od oi 90 days is gi nrplriir No.
1707 of2019 Pmeno Itules, 2 17 from the date of each dcnt to comply with the lcgal conscquences would and iailing whic \.1 - -+) (viiay Klf,nar Coyall I llaryana RealEst 1U.03 2025 (""r" tr rity, Curueram I Itegulatory Auth