SHRINIWAS SHARMA vs SHINE BUILDCON PVT LTD

ComplainrNo.46Z of 2024 *EARERA S"- cltnrcnlur BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Complaintno.: 462 ot2o24 Order rescrved onr 30.05.2025 Orderpronouncedonr 24.07.202s R/or- E-32, Phase-1, New Palanr Vihar NearSt.

Solider School, CuruCram, Hatyana 122017 Vcmus N1/s Shine Buildcon Private Linrjted Corporate oftic€r H-334, cround Floor.

New llajcnder Nasar, New Delhi 1100060 CORAM: Sh.iVijay Kumar Goyal APPEARANCE: Shri Garvit Gupta (Advocate) Shri Nishant lain (Advocatel ORD!:R Complainant The p resent complaint has been filed by th€ complajnant/allottees under section 31 olthe Real Estaie (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 [in short, rh.

Acr] rcad wrth rLrle 28 oithe Haryann Real [state (Regulation and Devetopment) Rules, 2017 (in shor! the Rules) ror violation oi section 11(4)(al of the Act $4re.cin it rs inter alia prescribed that the promote. shall be responsible for aU obligations, responsjbilities, and iunctions under the provisions ofthe Act or thc rules and regulatjons made there underor to the allottee as per the ag.eemenr for nne exe.uted nrtcr se.

Unit and proiect-related details The particulars of ihe project, dre details olsale consideration, the amounr pa by the.omplainanr, rhe date ofproposed handing over ofthe possession. and rhe dclay period, ifany, have been detarled in the following rabular lorm: l.

2 /a PHARERA #, eLnLrcnnv ry!4qotthe project '70 Gmndwalk", Sector 70, curusram 2.493: complarntNo 4b2ot2024 Proiectrrea ry4q{ithe proiecr DTCP license no. and c@4er!4!li94dq 34 .of 2012 dated 75.04.2012 valid upto 5.

6. i Y4!!!l!|status *cr!!9rc4 {1.

Unir arer ddmcasu.ng 9.

Shine Buildcon RERA Resistered/ 2A of2017 dated 2A_07 .2017 vatid 30.05.2022 A-00I,Groundfloor 04.03.2015 fPage no.

33 orcomplaint) 29.t4_20t5 (page 36 of complaintl 11.05.2015 (Pas. no.

41 of complaint) ril Lrtt.r lot exccuhon buycrs .,grecmcnt by .esppllqtr!

I Date olexecution oiBBA l4 12 l.l lluiklinE plirn approval 03. proval 03.05 2013 cR/57 02 /2023 another complaint of same project vide order dated 04.07.2424 Construction linked plan (page 86 ofcomplaintl Clause 73.

POSSESSION AND HOLDING CIURCES Ti] subject to Force Majeure, as delned herein and fufther subject b rhe Allottee hdving cohplied with all iE obligations undet the term oful conditions af thn Agrcenent ond not having delo ted under ory prcvieon(s) of this Agreenent including I I but not tinited to the nett pornent oJ olt dues dnd cha.ges includinq the total ele ConsiderotioL registtotion chorges, stamp dury ond other .hdtg6 ond abo subject to the /lllottee hdvins conplied wth aU lurnoltt$ ot dacunentotton o\ pre tbed I by thelompohr. the Compoiy p.npo\as to t[Iase no.33 of complaint 907 sq. it. [SuperArea) ase no.34 ofcomolaint 1 A *HARER' !j$-crnLrcnm,t Complaint No.

462 of 2024 oller the passession ol the sdid Shop to the Allattee whhin a petiot, of 42 nonths frcm the date ol sisnins ol this ogreement or opprcval of the Buit.ting plans, whichever ls loter, The Allottee lufthq ogfees aa.l unrle$tonrts thot the Conpany shal additiutolly be entitled to o pertod ol 6 (six noath) ("cru.e period"), olter the qpiry oJ the soid Connitnent Periad to dttowkr unlo6@n tlelays beyond the rcdsanoble contralaJ the unqualified and unconditional) t&c9r94@f!eap!",9 11.05.2019 (Calculated lo be 42 monrhs from rhe date of ex€cution of 8BA beinq later + GracF period of 6 months beine Rs.l 04,30,50U /- \l by Rs.1,07,65,315/- (As allesed by complarnant page l0 ol compla,nt and also during proceedrnS darcd 30.05.2025, confirmed by rhe c9qs9!&r!r !9n!l!r,r4r,!) A:per BBA at page no.87 qfcomplaint P 'Le!jurtrumtlr n t.) 111 fo..,p,.i* 10.10.2023 !l'Be 32 oi rcplyl 24.11.2023 R Facts ofthe complaint: 1'hc complainants made the following submissions in the complaint: aJ That the respondent oflered for sale units in a .omnrercial colony known as '70 Crandwalk which claimed to comprise orconrmercial units, ca. pa. s, ca. pa.kins spaces, recreational facilitres, gardens etc. on a piece aDd parcel of land situated jn Sector 70, Curugram, Haryana.

The respondent also claimed ihat lhe D'l-CP, Ilaryana had Branted license bearing no.34 oi2012 on a land area in Village Iladshahpur'lehsil ,nd l)istrict Gurgaon to irs assocrares conrpanies for development ol a conrmercial colony in accordance with the 3 Basic 15 (\ provisions olthe Haryana Development and Regutarjon of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and Rul.s made thercunder in 1976. b) That the complainant received a marketing catlfrom the office oirespondent in the month of luly, 2014 lor booking in commercial project namely, ,70 Grandwalk', situated atSector 70, Curugram.The compla,nanthad atso been attracted towards the alorcsaid project on account oipublicity g,ven by the respondent through various means like various brochures, poste.s, advertisements etc.

He visited the sales galtery and consulted with the nrarketi ng stali ol the respondenr.

The marketing sraff oi the responde nt also assur.d tirnely delivery ofthe unit. cl Thatdre conrplainant, induced by the assurances and rep.eseDtations madc by the respondent, decided to book a commercial unit in the project ofthc respondent as the complainant required rhe same jn a time bound manner fortheirown use.

This lafiwas aho specifically brought to the knowledg. of the oflicials of the respondent who confirmed thar the possessjon of the commercialunitto be allotted to thecomplainantwould be postively handed over withjn the agreed time frame.ltwas also assured by the respondenr that ii there was .rny delay on its part in handing over ths possession oi the commercral unit, then the rcspondent claiming to be a customer orienred company would make upfront paymenrofinterest as per the prevailing law dl That the complainant had made a payment of Rs.5,00,000/- at the time of booking v,de cheque no.

25455r dared 31.10.2014 and accordingtya receipt dated 04.11. ted 04.11.2014 was issued by the respondent acknowledging the same. 'Ihe respondent vide the said receipt allotted unit no.

A 001, Cround floor measuring 907 sq. ft. in the said project. lt was promised and assured by the respondent to the complainan( rhat rhe agreemenr would be executed in a sho.tspanol trmeandthesaid unitwouldbehanded overtothecomplainant *HARER] S,euninmv complainrNo 462 of2024 A e) Thatthe complainant arter rhe said booking jnquircd abourthe srarus ofthe issuance oithe allotment lefter and execution otthe agreement.

However no heed was paid to the inquiries made by rhe compta,nant.

The respondent despite theeflorts made bythe complainant neither senr the allotment lerrer along with the payment plan nor executed the agreemenr wirh rhe complaiDant.lhc respondenl on 30.11.2014 sent a cau norice denrandrng paymcnt of 11s.5,34,695/- which was duly paid by rhe complajnant on tjme and accordiDgly a receipr dated 13.12.2014 was issued by the respondent acknowledging th. said payment.

Again on 19.12.2014, the r€spondcnt senr a call notice d.manding net payable amount ot Rs.12,10,710/-.

The sajd payment denran d was paid wirh by rhe complaina nt as the complainant made the said paynent and accordingly rh€ respondent issued receiprs dared 08.01.2015 and 19.01.2015 to thc conrplainant. ll lhat aitcr several effons and comnrunicntions by the complain.rnt and ait.r the paynrent oln substantialsum towards the booking of the said unit, rhe respondent issued the allotment letrer dated 04.03.2015 a)o.g with the payment plan vide whichthe respondent allotted shop no.A-001, situared ar the ground floor having a super arca of907 sq. ft.'lhe totalsale consideration asperthepaymentplanwas Rs-1,12,97375/ . gl That the respondent on 12.03.2015 sent a demand lefter against'on start ot Flxcavation'vide which the respondent intimated the complainant that the construction ol the said proiccl ol th. respondent would be starting trorn 23.03. orn 23.03.2015 which categorically mcanr rhar all rhe statutory approvals r.quired for initinting const.uction ofthe project would have received by the respondent on or before 12.03 2015.

The said p:yment was duly met by the complainant and there was no delay wharsoever on th€ p3rt of the l*HARER r S-ounuennv Complainr No 462 of2024 HARERJ.

GURUGRA[/ hl 'lhat the complainanr has made a payment ot Rs.36,22,887/, before the execution oi rhe agrecmcnt.'l'he comptainant repeatedly requested the respondent for execution olan agreementtowards rhe allofted unir.

However thc respondent failed ro pay any heed ro the genuine request of the complahant and kepron dilly{lallying the mattsr on one pretexr or rhe other After a delay oi more than 5 months from the date of book,ng and after several repented reminders from the comptainant, the responde.t sent a letter dated 29.0,r.2015 towards the execurion oibuyer,s agreement for the 'l 'lhatdrecomplainantexprcssedhisobjcctionsrothearbirraryandunitareral clauses ol the buyer's agreemcnt to the respondenr.

Howevei during such discussjons, the respondenr summarily rejected the bonafide requcst of the complajnant and stated that rhe agreemenr terms were non negotiable and would rcmain as they wcre.

Srnce rhe complainanr had duly paid a huge amount out ol his hard earned mone)a he felr trapped and had no other option butto sign on the dotted lines.

Accordingly, the buyer's agreemenr was execut.d between the panics in dispure on 11.05.2015.

That the complainanr has rilldrtc mlde the payment of Rs.1,07,65,31S/ out of the total salc consideration amounrof Rs-1,12,97,375l- strictlyas per the terms olthe allotment and the time linked payment plan and no default in making timely paym€ni towards the instalment demands has bcen committed by the complainant 'l'hc respondent used to only provide a shon time span to make the paymcnt of all rhe payment demands. t demands.

Yet, atl the paymeots were made by the complainant without any delay, rarher the complainant has paid more imounr than the toral sale considerarion and there was nevcr any dehy c,rused by the conrplainant in makinE $ch jl Complaint No 462 of2024 lv E G A U|iR p lause 13 (ji) ofthe said buyer's asreeme.t, the respondenr RERA UGRA[/ k) 'Ihar as was under an obligatjon io oftcr the possession oi the sa,d unit wjthrn a period of42 months from the date oisigning orrhe agreemenr or approvat ot lhe building plans, whichever is later Since, the date ot execurion of rhe agreement was 11.05.2015, the due dare for rhe d.livery ofthe proje.t was 11.05.2019. ll That vide payment dcnDnd dared 30.03.2017, the respondent demdnded irom the complainant net payable amount of Rs.29,21,843/-.

The sard payment dcnrand lvas demandcdagainst'Completion of Strucrure'.

The next payment demand as pcr the terms ot the allornrent and the consrrucrion linked payment plan which was to be raised was at the stage of olicr of possessionl Sincc aU the payment damands except the demand to bc rarsed at thc time oi olier ol possession were sent by the respondent to rhe complainant, then the resporrden(/promoter should have been in the condition even othe.wise to apply lor the gmnt ofthe occupation certificate iD theyenr2017 itseli m) Thatdrc respondent miserably iailed tocomplywith the said due date as the same has be€n lapsed back in 2019.

There was inordinate delay in developing the proiect M ell beyond what was promised and assured to the compldinant.

Since the time period to handover the possession stated by the respondent in the buyers agreement lvas lapsed, he requested the respondent by telephonically, aDd by visiting the olfrce oi the respondent to updatc hinr about the date oi handing over of the possession.

The complainant even visited the conskuction sites 10-12 times during the whole dealing wirh the respondcnt.

Thc respondent. espondent.ontinuously misled the allottee(sj inchrding the conrplainant by giving incon ect information and timslines withrn lvhrch it was to hand over the possession of the unit to the complainant.

The respondent/prornoter had represented and warranted at the time ofbooking )12021 t *HARERA -&- c,trnrcnav that it would deliver the dream unii of the complainanr ro him in a tim.ty mannc.

Howevei the tiilure of the respondenr company has .esutted in serious consequences being borbe by the complainanr.

The respondent misrepresenled to the complainant that the possession would be handed over soon and the delayed int.rrsr $ould accordingly be adjusted. n) l'hat finally, vide letter datcd 2411.2023, the respondent intimated to thc complainant that the un,t allotred ro him was ready for possession as the respondent had obtained the occupation cerrificate.

0n eoins throush the tcrms of the olle. of posscssion, thc complainant realized that respondcDt had unilaterally increased the sale consideration of the unit by demandin8 illegalchargeswhichwerenotattributableto rhecomplainant. ol lhat the ofier of possession conL:rined s€v€ral illegalities which are as I, l'hat lhe re(pondent vrde the said offer of possessron demanded Rs.2,91,843/ towards the interest.

There was no delay at all on the parr of the complainaDt in nEking the payment towards the toral sale consideration amount.

Even othenvise, as already stated, the said amount has been charged by t}le respondent at the rate of 200,6 on the basis of unilateral terms ofthe agreetncnt.

The complainant is not bound to make such a paynrent mo.e so $,hen th€ respondent failed to adhere ro its contractual obligat,ons.

No such amount ofRs.2,91,843/- is due and payable by the complainant to the .espondent Rather, the respondent is legally bound to make the payment of delayed payment charges to the complainant as per provrsions laid do$rn bv law That as per the rate schedule at sale price ofthe unitwas Rs. nitwas Rs.99, with the agreement, the net basic However, as per the said orer of 77,0O0 /. lv II lntcr.st denranded trorn th. *HARER\ s-euntnnlnr I II.

That as per the rate schedule at attached with the agreement, the amount agarnst car parking chare.s was Rs.2,50,000/. llowever, the same have been unilatcrally incrcased to Iis.4,98,850/'.

1he complainant was coerced to nrake the entire paymenr 01Rs.4,98,850/- as on date.

The respondent is liable to relund the excess Rs.z,48,850/- paid by the complainanr to the respo ndent along with interest. pl That the complainant challenged thc imposition of several illegal chnrges that wcre demanded by respondent under the garb of a'legal'offer of possession.

The complainant made vocal his objections and sousht clarifications from respondent vide email dated 20.01.2024 The complainant vidc lhe said cmarl.rlso rcqucsted dre respondent not to create any third party rights by any means or to charge interest/hold,ng cha.Ees from the date ofissuance olthe offer ofpossession as the same itselfis invalid ComplaintNo.462 of 2024 .,0 iti .1,r pl" dit di 4,94,525 basic sale price of the unit has been increased to [basic sale price plus additional basic chargeJ.

No een given to thecomplainanrbythe respondenrregarding in the pr,ce.lhe complainant is not bound to make such nt and the offer ofpossession is invalid and void to such b rl l hat as per the rate schcdulc rt att.rched with the agreement, agairrt club chrrges tras Rs.50,000/.

Ilowcvcr, rhe same unilatcrauy rncreased to Rs.2,50,000/-.'l'he complainant was make payinent ol Rs.1,87,500/ as on date.

The respondent withdrnw the said demand and refund theexcess Rs.1,37,000/ conrphinant to the respondent .rlon,t with inrc.est. is liable to paid by the p HARERA GURUGRAIV and void.

However, the respondent ha! neither revoked the illegat demands nor handed over the possession to the complainanL C.

Reliefsoughtbythecomplalnantl 4. alnantl 4.

Thecomplainant has soughtthe following relief(s): vl parkingcharges. v i i Dir.ct the res po nden t not to charge anything not a part of agree nren r viii.

Direct the respondent not to charge holding charges on rhe incorrecr and illesal denand raised by it.

Pass an order ,mposing p.nalty on account oi various defaults and illesalitics under RERA Act, 2016. ',.'l"R,r.\pordcnr (onlenedthecompt"rntonthero owrnsEround\. al That the present complaint is not maintainable as Oirect the respondentpay delay possession charges.

Dnecttherespondentto handoverthepossession.

Direct the respondent to hold offer ofpossession 24.11.2023 being i11ega1 consisting olunlawiul demands.

Direct the respondent to immediately revoke the illegaldemands forming part ofthe offerofpossession and jssue a new and valid oiferoipossessron Direct the respondentto ex€cute cqnveyance deed Direct the respondenr to refund the excess amount of Rs.1,37,000/- towards club charSes and excess amount of Rs.2,48,850/- rowards car ii. iil r Since the L'ilcr ol possessio n irself has been cha llenged by the co mplaina nt is not liable to pay any interest on the wrong amount calculated by the respondent.

5 Or) the date ofhearnrg, theauthorityexplained to the respondent/promotcr about thc contraventions as alleged to harc been committcd in relation to section 1l (4) or theA.tto plead guilty or not to plcad guilg,.

D.

Replybytherespondent. booked the shop in question and buyer's agreement executed betlveeo the parties before coming into the complainant has dated 11.05.2015 was for.e of the relevant provision of the Act, 2016 and the Rules, 2017.

These legal provisions have been authoritatively held to be prospective in operation and these do not apply retrospcctively bciorc conrinA into force w.e.f.

01.05.2017.

Hence no tv HARER^ GURUGRA[/ interest can be imposed upon the respondent under the provrsions of Sections 12, 18 or 19 of the Act as the parties are bound by the rerms and conditions ag. itions ag.ced aDd contained in rhe buyer's agreement dated 11.05.2015 which wrs ex.cutcd prior to coming inro lorce ot Sections 3-19 of the RERA ActlRules.

Evcn in the mart.r titled as 'Neelkdmot e eahors Suburban pvt Ltd. & others vs Union ol tndto & Others" (MANU/MH/31j,/2017.

Equtvotent citation: 2o1I (1)ABRs s8, 2o1I(1)RcR(civil)298) it h..\s been heldthattheRllRAActislotapplicablcrerrospecrivety.ltencerheAuthoriry has no turisdiction to modify the terms and conditions ofbuyer's agreement dated 11.05.2015.

This Authorily has no power to re write rhe coDEact betwecn the parties. l)) lhatthecomplainanthasnorightroclaimmorethanrheamountfordelayed possession as agreed betwcen thc partres as per cl<ruse 13 (ii) oftbe b'ryer's agreement dated 11.0s.2015.

As per clause 13 [ii) ofthe buyer's agreement, the cornplainant is entitled lor compensation lor delayed period, if any, Cd Rs.5/- p.r sq. tt. oithe supcr arca lor.very month oidelay unrilthe actudl date lixed by the company for handrng over of possession oithe shop to rhe complainant which was subject to force majeure.

The occupation certrficate bearurg l\,lemo No.

ZP-819 /lD(l\A)/2023 /T6A7 dated 10.10.2023 has been issued to th. respondent by tl)c conlpetent authoriry.lhe respondent has already offered poss€ssion ofthe shop to the complainant vide letter datcd 24.11.2023.

Further, the total cost of the unit including taxes is Rs.1,32,18,742l- out of which the complainant has only paid an amounr ol Rs93,31,593/- and Rs.il8,04.a,ll9l is still outstanding agarnsr lhe complainant l'he respondent has already offered possession to the cl That the respondent has already obraincd thc occupation cerrificaie lor the unit ofthc complainant The complainant is undcr.ontractualobligarion ro I corpr"in, r.ro. .rsz .r zozl I A, clear th.ir outstanding dues along with interest trom the date of offer ot possession, i.e.

24.11.2024 till actual payment is made by the complainant. mplainant. 'Ihe complainant is liable ro rake possession arom the respondenr after making the due payments. d) Thatafter being fully satisfied with specilication and veracity ofthe prolect, the complainant applied lor booking ol commercial unir vide application form dated 04.11.2014 IIowever, the comptainanr was aware oaevery ternr olthe applic.rtion lorm and dc.ided ro sign upon the same after beinB tulty satisfied, without any prot.srordemur.

The respondent videallorment lerter dated 04.03.2015 was allotred a unir bea.ing no.

A 001 ar cround t-loor admeasuring super arca of907 sq.ft. (84.25 sq. mlr.l approximately, in the aforcsaid project. cJ Thatasperclause 13(iv) o f buyer's agreemenr the parties asreed tharin case lhe completjoD ofthe said shop is delayed due ro'Force Majeure', then the commitnrent period, and/or grace period and/or extended delay period, as the case rnaybe shall be cxtcndcd au to marically to the extent oi the dctay As tbe developnrent oa the project was affected due to rhe Covid-lg, and irccordingly thc respondent is entitlcd for a iurther exrens,on of6 monrhs rn due dat. of possession.

It may also be noted that the dare of offering possessjon was to be calcula(cd irom the dare of signrng of rhe buycfs agreement and the respondenr herein was enritled for extension for such period oldelay caused due to lorce majeure being purelybeyond the conrrol ofthcr.spondcnt. ll That itis an evjdent iactthat sin.c sl.rrtrngthe respo ndenr was co nr nr rtted lo complete the construction of the project within the proposed timelihe and till datc had invested an anrount approx.

Rs.1,20,00,00,000/- towards completion ot lhe proiect includinjt bo the land cost and construction relatcd costs/expenditLrres Ihc r.spondeDtuDder bonafide had already pard complaintNo.462ol2024 td, *HARERA {S, cunrcnnvr EDC/IDC charges iD fuU to the concerned department and on the conrrary, the collectron lrom the allottee(s) or rhe project was onty approxinrate 11s.4s,00,00,000/, Th. ,000/, Th. respondent has already spenr more amount than collected lrom thc allottee(sl in completion otthe p.oje.t rnd even obtained o.cupation certificate lrom the concerned department which apparendy proves that there was never any mala fide on rhe part ot the respond cnt and the re is no intcn tio n.r l delay in completio n ol the pro)ect. rhe respondent is not liable to pay any delayed charges to the complainant. g) That in accordance with the provisions of rhe Act,2016 the respondent had even nppljed for registration oi the said project with the Authority vide application dated 2A.07.20)7 ald upon receivins the said applicnrion the Authority had granted regisn.atioD to the respondent lor rhe prolecr in question vide regisrrarion no.28 of2017 dated 28.07.2017 which was duty rntimated to thc complarnantvlde emaildated 05.08.2017. h) 'Ihat thc respondent was committcd to complete the development of the projecr and handover the posscssion within rhc proposed timelines.

The developnrentalwork ofthe said project was slightly decelerated duc ro rhe rcasons beyond lhe controlofthc respondent due to the impact ofGood and Seruices Act.

2017 which camc into force after the effe.r of demnforiT:rinn in last quarter o1 2016 which str.tchcs its adverse etfect in various indusrnal. construction, business area even in 2019.

The respondent had to undergo h uge obstacle d ue to effect ol dcmonctization and i nrplementation of the GST. ') that duc to abovc unforcscen circuDrstances and causes beyond thc control ofthe respoDdent, the devclopnrent olthe project gor decelerated.

That sLrch delay was not intentional.

The respondent was bound to adhere with the order and notifications ofthe Courts and the Government.

The derails ofthe ban on construction activities vide v|rious dircctions ofrhe National Creen 'lribunals or dre Statutory Audrortros et.. are hrghlighted in the table b.low: /4 THARERl ti&eLrnLrcnnur (ompl. nur (ompl.inr No 462 of2024 N 'ourfteo Tribunat/0e 1r 2017 r,r"d;n;l Nnvi rc & r,{nJt7L3 r?rur?

13.12 ZOtT - 030r20is (?2 cEn ftbun.l /03.11.2016 Delh Pollution conrol conmlttee (DPcc).

D+rtmenr of Eny,tonmmr.

Bo,!d/ [nv onmenr Polution (Prvention & contbl audrduy) Enuioom iPoru.on(Pre@ohon3, 03r1.r016 l6.rr.:r016 (3 dayn r406.2013 1706 z0l3l3 d,yrl ,4nro1s 16,,rorsLrd,y.n 251o201e - 301o201e rs qr, 0r 11z0r9 -0s 11201e l5d:yn A(hor(y).EPcA jl That the delay caused due to unforeseen ciromstaDces, shal be calculared, before the determination ofthe date to offer possession to the comptainant.

As per the calculations, rhe dare to offer possessjon has ro be extended by approximately 1.4 years.

Subscquently, in 1une,2021, removat ofthe Covid- 19 restrictions it took time lor rhe workf,orce to commute back from their villages, which lcd to slow prosress of the compl€t,on oi projed.

Despire, lncing shortage in workfo.ce, materials and rranspo.tation, the respondent managed to continue witl th. coDsruction work.

The respondenr also had to carry out the lvork of repair in rhe already constructed buitding and lixturcs as the constructjon was left abandoned lor mo.e than 1 year due to Covid-19 lockdown.

This led to lurther extension oa the tihe oeriod in construcrion of the projecr.

6 HARER GURUGRAII rl l) 'lhat on 08.08 2022, after continuous ellorts of respondent towards the completion oithe project, the rcspond.nt informed the complainanr rhat the mechanical, elcctrical, plumbing and other related services along with f'nishing wo.L tremix work and surface preparation in rerail shops will be complctcd within 2 3 months.

The respondent also srated thar ofter oi possess'on will be provided withln next 3-,1 monrhs and soon the complainant will be recelving the calllctt.rfor remittance ofpayment tor rhe last instalment.

The respondent also attacbed photographs showjng the progress in the construction ol the project. e project.

Despite, aft€r facing various hindrances in mid-way oi the construction ol rhe project the respondcnt herein has managed to conrplete the construction of the p.oject.

Ihe const.uction of the project wherein thc unit/shop of the complainant rs situatcd has been complctcd and the respondent has already obtained occupirtion ccfliiicate on I 0 10.2023 nrl 'lhdt the complainant herein, has suppressed thc above stated lacrs and has raised this complaint under reply upon baseless, vague, wrong grounds and That al1 these factors being force majeure may be taken into conside.arion for the calculation of rhe period of the construction of the project.

The respondent had carried out irs obtigations in agreement with utmost diligence.

As can be seen from above paras, the respondent without any binding obligation, on jts own sense of duty, rhrough various letters, has updated the complainant about rhe status of the project wirh attached pictures for the same.l hat whilc computing the date to offer possession rhe grace period as agreed by the complainant under clause 13 shall also be considered.

Thus, as per the agreemenr, excluding the force majeure situations, the date to offer possession shall be 11.05.2019, after addition of the grace period as agre€d by the complainant under clause 13(ii) of the Cumplarnt No.

4b2of 2U24 A/ has mislead the Authority, tor the reasons stated above.

None ofthe reli€fs as prayed for by the complaina nt are sustainable before the Authoriry and in the interest ofjustice.

Hence, the present comptainr under reply js liabte to be dismissed with cost.

7. (lopi.s of all the rclevant documenrs have been liled and placed on rhe record. lheirauthentici$ isnotindjspurc Hence,thecomptaintcanbedecidedbasedon these undisputed documents and submission made by the complainanr. ti. lurisdictioD ofthe autho.ity: ll. o.ity: ll. l'he autho rity observes thar ir has terr,rorial as well as s ubject matter iu risdicrion lo adjudicatc the present complrrnr tor lhe reasons given below. [.] Territorial lurisdiction.

9 As per notilication no- l/92/2017-7TCP dated 14.12.2017 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, rhe jurisdiction oi Real [srate Regutatory Authority, Gurugr.rm shall be the entire Gurugram District ior all purposes with oilices situated jn Gurugram. ln rh. presenr case, the project in questron t:i situaled within thc planning area ofCurugram d istrict. 'l herefo re, rhis authority h.s complete territorialiurisdiction to dealwith the present complaint.

U.ll Subiect matter iurisdiction 10. scctioD 11(.1){a) ofrh.

Act,2016 provjdcs rhat rhe promoter shallbe responsble !o the allottec as per the agreement tbr sale.

Secrion 11{4)(al is reprodu.ed as ffIARER i 9F- eunLrennu Complarnt No.462 or 2024 tl section 11(41(o) lte t csponsiht. ld att.htigutnns .espanabilxies ond lun.tons undet the ptuvit)ahs.lth6 Actat the tltt\ o d tesulations nade thercLnderor to thc a I I attee s u t pe. the ag rec nr n t Jo t so t e, ar ta the ussac iation ol al loxees, us the case nay be,till thecohveronce ofdll the oparthents, ploLt or build ingt os the cae nay be, ta the ollottees, ot the connon areos to the asa- cidtior alollottees or the conpetent oLthotny, os the.ose mot be, Section 34-Functions ol the Authority: :t4 A al th e Act pr ovi de\ b. r tu re. o tn p h o n ce al t h e obl igo Lioh t cos t upon the protnoter\, the ollottees nnd dE rcol estare ogents under ths Ad o n d th e tu les o n.l r egu latian : n)a.le the te u h.l e r So, in view ofthe provisions oithe Act quoted above, the autho.iry has complete iu, isdiction to .lecide the complaint regarding non compliance of obligations by p !rHARERA *-ounuenen t tu.,,r* N"r5, "rroz4 thc promoter leaving asjde compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicatjng olticer rfpursued bythc complainanrs ata taterstaee. aterstaee.

Findings on the objections raised bythe r€sponde.tl F.l obiections regardlngforce maieure. 'l'he respondcnt-promote. has raised rhe contcnrion rhar the construction ofthe trnit ol the complainant har been d.laycd due to forcc majeure circumstances such as orders passed by th.

Ilon'ble NC], Environment Prorection Conrrot Au tho rity, and Hon'ble Supreme Co urt and COVI D- 19. 'the pleas of the respo ndent rdvanced ir this regard are devoid of merit.

The ordcrs passed were tor a very short period of tinre and thus, cannot be said to impact rhe respondent/burlder lcading to such a dclay in the completion. t'urthermore, the respondenr should have foreseen such situations.

Thus, the respondenr/promoter cannot be given any leniency on the basis ofaloresaid reasoDs. the respondent/pronioter further allcSed rhat grace period on accounr of fo.cc ',,rieu.e conditions be allowed ro ir lr raiscd rhe co nte ntion that the consrrucrion ol the projcct was delayed du. to rorce majeure conditions such as (lcmonetization, orders of the Hon'ble NCl prohibiting construcrion in and ound Delhi various other coun ordem and the Covid 19, pandemic among olhers, but all the plcas advanccd iI thjs rega.d arc devoid of mer,r.

The buyer's .Sreement was executed bebveen the parties on 11.05.2015 and as per rernrs and conditions of the said agreement the due date ol handing over of possession comcs out to be 11.05.2019.

Ihc cvcnts such as demonetizarion and various ordcrebyNCI in view ot weathcr condrhoD of Delhi NCR region, w.re for.r shorter duration of time and were not cont,nuous.

Hence. in view of aforeerid orcumstanccs, no period grace perjod can be allowcd to the respondent/buikler l horgh sonre allottees may trot be rcgular in paying the amount due but wherhcr lhc interest olallthc stakehold.rs concerned with the said project be put on hold due to lault ol some ofthe allottees. allottees.

Thus, the respondent/promoter cannot be lq,' LiARERA GURUGRAI\I granted any leniency for aforesaid reasons.

I s well settted principte that a pcrson cannot take benefit olhis own wrongs.

14.

As lar as delay in construction due to outbreak ofCovid-19 is concerned, Hon,bte Delhi High Court in case ritled as M/s rlolllburton Ofishore Serylces tn(; y/S Vedanta Ltd. &Anr. beortng rc.

O.M. p (r) (Comn.) no.

Bg/ 2020 on. -As 3696- 3697/2020 dated 29.05.2020 has obseryed that: t;9 The pon non-perlotnonce althe cahtroctor connot be cohdoned due tu the CAVID-19 lockdown n March 2A20 in lndio.The Cantrocto.wasin btench sr.e Septetnbe.2Al9 t)pp.rtunitiet were giveh b the Contruttat to .ute the tune rcpedtelty Despite thc sane, the Contmcbr dttd nat .aDpletethr Ptu)..t the.utb,edk alu run.le'nk onnaL be tsed as on ex d1s. /or non pa40rn)an.. rl o cantun fat ||hich the teodlnes wcre nuch belate the auLbtcok tLletl: l he rcspondent rvas liable to complete the construction ofthe project and the liossession of the sajd unitwas to be handed overby 11.05.2019 and rs ctaiming bcnefit oflo.kdorvn which c.rme inro cllict on 23.03.2020 whereas the due datc ol hand ing o\]er o t possessio n was nrLrch prior ro the eventofoutbreakofCovid l9 pandemjc.

Therefore, the authority is oithe view that outbreak ota pandemic ..rrrnot be uscd as an excuse ior non- performance of a contract for which thc deadlines w.re much beforc drc outbreik itselfand ior the said reason th. said trnre period is not excluded whrlc calculating the delay in handinB over ri trdings on rclief so ught by the complainanL c.l Direct thc respondent paydelay possession ch.rges.

C.ll l)irect the rcspondent to hold oficr of possessioo 24,11.2023 b€ing illeSal co nsisting or unlawfu I deDands.

1n the present complaint, the complainant intends to contiDue with the projecr and is seeking possession ol the subject unit and delay possession charges as provided under the p. der the p.ovisions of section 18(1) ofrhe Act which reads as under: (i Compl.rnt No.462or2Uz4 "Se.tion 14. - Retutu of anount on.r conp.ntutloh fiA). tfthe protnoterlols to conpletear isunoble togive posse$ion ol on upottnena ploa otbu)ldin9, t\ *HARERA S.-eunucnrM ComplainrNo.

462 or2024 Prartded .Lwhereanall. le tt&s nat ntend to w tulraw ton the pra ject, he sho!lbe poid, br n1c pton"n.L trLuen far eve.y tnonth otdetav, tjl l7 Clause 13(ii) of the apa(menr buyer ag.eement provid€s for handjng over of posscssion and is reproduced below: 'ti)'ubkcLto t.arce tid)c t N. ot tefined h cin ond furth{ subjed to the Allattce ho .!t.odplied with olt \obttlloLDns utuier Lhe te.nsond.on. dnbh\ olthL Apteen.hr ontl nat h.rt)o ttelortra unrlet any p, avistoh(!) althls Agrcetneht in.lutlins but not lihned h the hn)eu polhent aloll ducs and .harges tncludinlt the tatot sotc Cansidetution, reg$rotjoh . ho rltcs,sti n p.l u L! a tul o t h e t ch a ry c t n h d o I i s u blec t to th e Altottee hat ins catnplic.t dith u la.n lni.\ or dr.unentation as prcscibed by the conpon!, the Conpany proposes to olfet tha posesion ol the soid shop to the illottee wnhi, o period of 42 months lron the dote ol signing oJthis dgreetneit or qprowt ol the Buikting prons, whieh cver is later The Altottee lunher agtees ond und.rstands thot the Company sholl odditionallt bc entitted to d pe.iod oJ 6 (si, month) ( cro.e perhr!), aker the eqiry of the soid comnihent Perio.! to ollow lor unloreseen .lelaw beyon.t the reosonable controt oJ the conpony.

Ill.

Due date o f handing over possession a nd ad missibility of grace pe.iod: t'he promoter has proposed to hand over the possession oithe subtect unir wirhin a pcriod o f 42 mo nlhs lrom the date o f signing ol this agreement or app roval ot the building plans, whichever is later alld turther additionally be enttled to a p.rod ol 6 months as Cracc period.

In thc pr.senr mattcr, the date ol buildrnS pt.rn af proved on 03.05. on 03.05.2013,and thebuyer'sagreementwasexecuredintersepanies .n 11.05.2015.

Thus, the 42 is calculated from the dare of execution ol buyers xgre.mcnt bcing Lrtcr i.e., 1105.2015 conres out to 11.11.2018.

Further, gruce months is allowed to the respondent being unqual,fied and for the force majeure.

Thus, the due date of handins over possession comes out to be 11.05.2019.

19.

Admissibility ofd€lay possession charges at prescrlbed rate ofinterest: The complainant is seeking delay possession charges.

Proviso ro SectioD 18 provides thnt where an albttee does not rntend to withdraw from the project, he shall be p,,id, by the promoter, interest lor every month ofdelay, till the handins over of A *HARERA -&- c,tnrcnlvt possession, ai such rate as may be prcscribed and it has been prescribed under Rule 15 ofthe Rules, ibid.

Rule 1s has been reproduced as und€r: ''Rule 75.

P.esibed rut oflntepst- IProviso to sqaion72.s.cttotTA dn.t sub-tuction (4) ond bse.tion (7)olse.uon 191 For the purpoe ol praiso ta section 12:section lAjond sub-sectiohs (4) ond (7 ) of sectian 19, the "interett ot the rate prescribed sholl be the stote Bonk of lndiu hishesr noryntol.o* aI tending rate +2%.: Prcided thot in cose the Stute Bankaltndia noryinalcost ol lending tute (MCLR) 1s not in use, itshallbe rcplaced bt such benchndrkLndins mtes which the State Bonk al tndio nay ,x lron tine to tine Iot lending to the eenerolpublic.- 20.'lhelegislatureinitswisdominthesubordinatelegislationundertheRul€15of the Rules, ibid has determined the prescribed rate olinterest.

The rat€ ofinterest so determined by the legislature, is reasonable and ifthe said Rule is followed to award the interest, it will€nsute uniform pracrice in allrhecases.

Cohbl.int No 462 of2o74 2l (ionsequently, as per website ofthe State Bank of India i.e., marginal cost of lcnding rate (in shor!, I4CLR) as on date i.e., 24.07.2025 is 9.10%.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate of i.terest will be marg,nal cosr of lcnding rat. +2% i.e., 11. i.e., 11.10%.

22. l'hc definition ofterm'interest'as delned under Section 2[za) olthe Act provides tll.rt the rate olintcrest cha.geablc ilom the allottec by the promoter, in case of dcfault, shallbe equalto the rate ofinterestwhich the p.omoter shallbe liable to pay the allottee, in case ofdefault.

Th€ relevant Section is reproduced below: "(za) "intetest neans the totes alrntercst poyoble hy the prcnatet or the ollauee, as the .ose not be.

Explanotion, tbr the plt poe of thr claue - the raE oltntetenchoryeable tatn the ullotteebythepranoter,in co* ol defoula shdll be equal ta thc rote olintercstwhich the pronote. shall be t,obt. o pur,hc-ttatee ., ..o.\ "ldelabr the nterest payoble bJ the prcnater to the ollottee shall be lron the.lote the p.ahaLet re.eired the ofrnunr.r on! port therealtill the dote the onarnt ar pott the.eofdnl lntu.n thttcon 6 relundcd, ond the tnteren poyul,le br nte allatree b tt)e p,on)atet :holl be lroht rhe dote the ollouee defdults in poynentto the prcnbtettill the dateita pod: 23 Therefore, intereston the delaypayments ftom thecomplainant shallbecharged at the prescribed rate i.e.,11.10 % bythe respondent/promoter which is the same as is beinggranied to them in case oldelaycd possession charges.

11" comolai.tN.462.f7o74 24. on consideration oi the circunrstan.es. lhe evidcnce and orhe. record and submissions made by th€ parti€s, theAuthor,ty is satisfied thatthe respondent is in contravention of the provhions of the Acr.

By virtue of buyer,s agreemenr .xecuted between lhe parties, rhe possession of the booked unit wns to be dciivered within 42 months with an addirionalgrace period oi6 months from rhe d.rte of execution of the agreem.nt (11.05.20151 or date otapprovals of buitding pLans (03.05 2013), whichever is larer.

Iher€fore, the due dare othanding over posscssion comes out to be 11.05.2019 (including the Srace period oisix monthsl ..rlculated trom rhc date ol exccution of buyeis agreemenr being tatcr. ing tatcr.

Occupation certificate was granted by the concer.ed aurhority on 10.10 2023 and lhereaiter, thc possession olthe subjed unit was oifered to the comptajnanr on 24.11.2023.

Copx s olthe same have been placed on record.

25 lhe complainant herein hns raiscd conlention that letter of oiler of possession Biven by the respondent is not a vahd offer ofpossession.

As offer ofpossession is issucd with several additionat denrands which are not the part oa the builder buyers agrecment, etc.The said oifcr ofpossession is valid as the posscssion has bcen offered alter.ccciving occupatjon ceilificate from rhe competent authoriry.

As per Section 19(10) oiAct of 2016, the allottee(sl are under an obligation to l,rke possession of the sub,ect unit within 2 months irom the date of receipt ol occupation ccrtincate.

The Authority is oithe vi.w rhat ilthe additional denrands arc made by dre d eveloper, the allottee(s) may accept possession under protesr or dccline to take possession raising obiection against unjustified demands. llowever, no objection has been raised by the complainant at the time of ofier of 26. lhc Authority is of the considcr.d vicw drat there is delay on part ol rhc Npondent to oiler physical possession of the subject unit and there is failure on l, rrt ofthe promotcr to fulfil its obligations:nd responsibilities as per the buyer's tv agreement dated 11.05.2015 to hand over the possession within the stipulared 27.

Sectionl9(10)oirbeAcrobligaresrhealtotteeIs)rotakepossessionotthesubrecr nnit within 2 monlhs kom rhc dalc of rcceipt of occupation certificate. tn the present complaint/ the occupation cerrificate was granted by the competent authority on 10.10.2023.

The respondent offered the possession of rhe unit in question to the complainant only on 24.7L.2023, so it can be said thar rhe compla,nantcame to know abour the occuparion certincateonty upon the dare of olter ot possession. ossession.

Therefore, in the interest o f natural just,ce, the comptainants should be given 2 ,nonthJ time from the dare of offer of possession.

These 2 nronth oareasonable time,s being Biv.n to rhe complainant keeping in mind that cvcn atter intimation of possession practically rhe), have to arr:nge a tot oI logistics and requisite documenrs including bur not limited to inspection of the conrpletely finished unit but this is subjecr to rhat rhe unit being handed over at thc time or taking possession is in habtable condirion.

1t is turrher ctarified rhat thedelay possessionchargesshrllbc payrblefromrhe d ue date of possessio n, ie., 11.05.2019 till the expiry of 2 months irom the date of offer of possession (2,1.11.20231 whi.h comes out to be 24.01.2024. (i.lll Dire.t the respondent to handoverthe possession, 2ll lhc respondent has obtained the occupnrion certificare from the competcnt autbority on 1 0.

10.2 0 2 3 and oitered rhe possession ol the allotted un it v ide letrer dirted 24.11.2023.

As per Section 19(101 ofAct of2016, the attortees are und.r an obliSation to take possession otrhe subiecr unt wirhin 2 mo.ths from rhe ddte ot r.(:eipt ofoccupation certificatc Thc I cspo ndc nr shall ha ndover rhe posscssion ot tlre allotted unit as per specjtication of the buyer's agreement entered rnro bctween thc parties.'lhe complainanr is directed to take the possession of the allotted unit aiter making payment of outstanding dues, ilany within a penod of PHARERA *&* eunucnll,r 30 ilays orrhrs ordcr A c,lv Di.ecr rbe respondeDtto execute .onveyance deed.

29.

The complainant is seeking relieioiexecution ofconveya.ce deed.

As per claus€ 14 oithe buyer's agreement provides for'Conveyance deed and stamp duty, and is reproduced belowl .,1 4, CONVEYANCE DEED AND STAMP DUTY Subject to the Allottee,lunlhnp atl iE rcsponsibihties snpLloted hcrcin ond execurn! on! .Lhet docunent os requned b be executed puryUant ta thts Ag. a thts Ag.eenent ohd nokinq atl poynents rndetthX Altrcenent, tncludinlt brL h.L tinited ta: L) AttpLr lan^ os serlo h tn ANNI:xtIRt ltt ta thn Agteenen, in dutlths (he solec.nsid.toton olthe sot.l shop; (h) lnterestan delayed hnulmenls: (ni ) Rcsktto ti on chorg $ : (iv) stdnpdutr: (v) Any athet incidenrot chatges ar dues, rcqtired ta be poidfa. due executtan und regnt at@n olthecanveyance Dced) (vl ltoldtnsdlatgaond/atanyothertharoes,dues puyable bythe Al- t.Ltee to the t lsA/Conpo ! ti tI the dote olexecutian of the Cohver- dnce Deedj (vi)) All othet.lues, ds ytlotth ih this Asreementoros noy becone due to the Codpanylton tme tottne dth rcspe.t to the said Shop) The Contpany shall prcporc on.l e\ecute Canreyance Deed ta convey the tr b 4l tre,n- I i\op n talo I ol t..,.

4tt, 1 -.\ " 30. l'hc Authority has gone through the conveyance clause of the agreemenr.

A rcibrence to the p.ovisions ofsection 17 (1) oftheAct is also must and t provides *HARERI S, cl,n,tcnlu CumplarnrNo 4D2 ,fl0l I ' section 17: - Trans[q of ttule 1 7 ( 1 ).

T h e pro tn oter sho t t exec u te u rc s is t e.cd convela n.e de ed in lovaur aJ t h e o 1 lattee d I ong wi th th e u n.lir i.led ptaparL i ono te t i tl e i n the.on non o rea s b the n sac i a tion aI the o I lottees o r the can pete nt outhoirJ, as the ca* noy be, and hond orer the phtsicdl posse$ion of the plot, oportnent albLitding, os the co* nay be, to the ollottees ond the connondte6 to the o\soclottan althe ollottees ot the cnnpetent autho.iry, ds the cose naybe ino reot esrote prcjett,and the athet rttle do.unenrs pertoinin! the.eLr,\|ithjn tpecilied pcrio.t os l"r\.h.tioned plansos provrJed undet the b.allo$: Ptovidc.l thot, ih the abseh.eolonr locallaw canveyance deed in lovott olthe atattee or the asocidtion ol the ottottees or the conpetent authority, asthecosena! be uhlerthis sectioh sholl be cotied aut by ttte ptonote. within thrce nanths liah dote oI ksue of otupuncy centlicate' .11. cate' .11. l-he respondcnt is under an obligrlion as per S.ction 17 oiAcr ro get the conveyance deed executed in favour of the complainant.

Also, as per section A IARER JG rft 0.1 U t 1 RL.

1r GUI fth RA]V t of 2076, 0.2023 by f;..pr"r.or";, "r ro14 I the allottee is also obligated to participate towards 19(111 o Sranted directed to execute the conveyance deed upon payment ofoutstanding dues and requisite stamp duty bythe cohplainanrs as per norms ofrhe state government as per section 17 oftheAct 2016. deed of the unit in question.

As delineated tificate in respect of the said prolect/unit was competent authority.

Thus the respondent is Dircct rhe re\pondenl not to ( hJryc rnylhing not a p.n ot agreemont, C.VI Direct the respondent not to charge hotding charges and maintenanc€ .harges till actu.l handover.

G.Vll.

Direct the rcspondent not to charge EEC/EFC, charges and power backup 32. 'lhe above-mcntioDcd reliek soughr by thc complainant is bcing taken togerher .rs the findinSs in onc relief will defi n irely allect rhe result ofthe other reliet 33.

Thc respondent shall nor charge anyrhing from rhe comptainanr which is not the p,rrtolthebuyer'sagreement.Iherespondcntisalsonotentitledtoclaimholdrng .harges fionr the complainants at any point oatime even after bein8 part of the lruilder buyer ngrecment as pcr law seftled by lron?le Supreme Court in civit appedl nos.

3864-3889/2020 decided on 14.12.2020. .

Ir,taintenance Charges 3,1.

1hr issue has already been dealt i!ith b) theAuthoriry in complaint bearing no ,1031 of 2019 titled ar "ydrun Gupta Vs.

Emaar MCF Lond Linited" decided on 12.04.2021, wbereir it was held that the respondent is right in demanding rnaintenancc charges at the rates prescribed in the builder buyer's agreement ar the time oloffer of possession Ituw. sion Ituw.ver,lhc rcspondent shall nordemandrhe n'rjntenance chargcs for morethan oneycar from theallottee even in thosccases wlrerein no specific clause has been prescribed in the agreement or where the n)rintenance chargcs has bccn dcnranded ior more than ayear. .

IEclErC Charges and power backup charges: t\ ffHABEBA 9!- eunuennrl As far as external electrlflcat k entitled to recover the ch executed inter se parries. respondent has charged EEC theAgreement which states iot charges are concerned, the respond€nt/promoter arges only in terms ofthe builder buyer agreement As per offer of possession dated 24.17.2023, the /EFCand thesameare payable under clause 21(ii) oI 'A.lequute |nefishtuts eqripn).ht o\ per low wtll be nstalletl br, the Canpanylnthe TACrohdhulk rrolectond ant n.teose in the a^t bt wof .lud.)itnnal equtpnent.l.cn.d hec6sut! b)r the Conpany ot ltls4 sholl be poid an dennnd b! the Allouee i prapanrcn b the sLperA.eo ol the sdt.l shap to Lhe supet otea olo the BLildings in the 70 Arand\|olk ptujo " 36. ln view of thc anrresaid clause, lhe respondent is entitled to recover the actual chargcspaid tothecoDcerneddcpartmenrfromthecomplainanronpro ra!abasis on account ol electriarcat,on, i.e, depending upon the area of the flat allotted to lhe conrplnjn:rnt vis-:r-vis the area of all the flats in thrs particular project.

Thc complainant will also be entitled to prool of such a payment to the conccrncd dcpartmcnt along with a computation proportionate to the allotted flat, belore makins payment underthe aforesaid head.

G.Vl I L Direct the respondent to pay litigation cost of Rs,1,00,000/-, 37 lhc complainanl is seeking relief w.r.t .ompensation in the aforesaid relici. llon ble Supreme Couft oflndia in civil appeal titled as M/s Newtech Promoters ond Developers Pw.

Ltd.

V/s Shre otUP & Ors.

Supra held that an allottee is cntitled to claim compensation under sections I2, 14.

18 and section 19 which rs to bc decid.d by the adjudicat'ng officer as per se. as per se.tion 71 and the quantum of compensation shall be adjudged by the adjudicatirS officer having due regard to drc factors mentioned in section 72.'lhe adjudicating offcer has exclusive Juflsdictron to dealwith the complaints in .espect oicompe.sation. ll.

Directions issued byth€ Authority: A- lt lrHARE $-ounue under sect,on 37 ii.

The arrcars ol interest accrued so far shallbe 90 days lrom the date ofthis ordcr as per rule passes this order and issues the followingdirections to ensure compliance with oblagations cast upon the ns entrusted ro the Authoriry under section 34(f) of RA RAM nty hereby i.

Th. respondent/promoter rs directed to pay interest to rhe conplainant against the paid up amount ar thc prescribed rate ot 11.10% p.a. tor .v$y month oldelay from the due date of possessioD i.e., 11.05.2019 titlvatid oifer of possession (24.7t.2023) plus 2 months after obtain,ng occupanon ccrtifi.ate lrom the competent authority or actualhanding over ofpossession, whichever is earlicr, as pcr scction 18[1J oi the Acr oi2016 read with rulc l5 paklt 16t21 o th€ complainant wjthin The rate of inte.est chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default shall be charged at the prescribed rate i.e., 11.10% by the respondent /p.omotcr which is the same rate oi interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, jn casc oidefault i.e., the delayed possession charges as persection 2(zal ofthcA.t. iv.

The complainant is directed to pay outstanding dues, ilany, aiter adjusrment ol delay possession charges within a period of 30 days.

The respondent is directed !o handover the phys ical pos session ofthe unit within 30 days to rhe complainant/allottee.

The respondent is lurther directed to execurc rhe convey:nce deed upon payment ofoutstanding dues and requisite stamp dury by the complainants as per norms ofthe state governme. governme.t as per section l7 The respondent shall not charge anyrhing from the complainant which is not the part ofthebuyer's agreement.

The respondent ,s also not entitled to claim complaintNo.

462of 2024 ld *IARERr H!,- r,unrnnnnr 40. holding cbarges from the complainanr/allottee at any point oftime even after being part of the builder buyer agreemenr as per law sertted by flon'br" Supreme Court in civil appeal nos.

3864-3889/2020 decided on 14-12.2020_ Complaint as well as appli.ations, jtrny, stand disposcd offaccordingly. lile be consigncd to tbe registry.

Daredr 24.07.2025 vr -+2 tvi,ly fumar coyall Member Haryana RealEstate RegulatoryAuthority, Curugram Complaint No.

462 of 2(r24 IJ I3tyg H ITERA TA A,t\t /8 .l ,0r '9.\ \(