SHAGUN GUPTA VINEET HARBHAJANKA AND PIYUSH GUPTA vs DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED

THARERA $- crnLrcnntr Complaint no.

6624of 2022 BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM 6624 ot 2022 76.04,2024 03.09.2024 complaintro.: ord.r reserued on: Order pronounced on: Mrs.

Shagun Gupta Mr.

Vineet Harbhaianka Mr Piyush Gupta All R/o: - House No.

B'34, First Floo., CC Colony, Rana Pratap Bagh, Malka Ganl, Delhi- 110007.

Versus M/s DLF Homes Developers Limited Regd. officer 1r Floor, DLF Gateway Tower, 'R" Block, DLIr City, Phasc-lll, Gurugram 122002, Haryana CORAM: ShriVijay Kumar Coyal ShriAshok Sangwan APPEARANCE: ShriAbhey lain and Rishabh lain (Advovate, Shn J.K.

Dang (Advocatel Chairman complainarts ORDBR 1.

The present complaint has bcen filed by the €omplalnants/allottees under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) AcL 2016 (in shorr the Act) read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Developmeno Rules, 2017 (in short, the Rulesl for violation oi section 11(4)(al of theActwhereinitis interaliaprescr,bed thatthepromotershall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and tunctions to the allottee as pertheagreement for sale executed inter_sethem- s of sale consideration, osed hand,ng over the n the following tabular I}HARERA SGuRUGRAI,I Unlt and Prorect related detatts: The particulars of th€ projec! the detait paid by the complainants, date of prop delay period, ifan, havebeen detaited i 2.

Compla nino 6624 of20ll Details "lndependenr floors' DLF Sector 73, Cr!!.ugram 1r1 Registered 59 o( 2027 dated 21 .09.2a21 Pase 35 and 36 ofthe complianrl _ 2148 sq. ft. (l.formed 06.06.2022, D 6/4 A, rn rrdependc rr iln.r Jt li, rt RERA Registered/ not PlotJred admeasunng Date of booking 13.71.2021 Date oaallothent left.r vide letter dated at pag€ no.

69 of 22.112421 Page no.35 otthe compliantl l0 Date Buyer's agreement annexed but nor execut€d between the parries The Pnnoer oee6 ond bdtstunds tharnnetl dettwry al ,assrion of the *d trdeb?id. trdeb?id.

FtNthtt sidentiot ueato,qwith po nsbiht el4letnes at the.onp?t4. rttharte. as the as.

11. agreement 2548 sq. it. carpet a.ea (As per allotment 22.7 t.2021, ar pal 35 f- I} HARERA S- crrntcnar,r Complaintno.6624ol2022 not b2, B proyitLd "nd.r Rrb 2a)a aJ Rutes 2017.

B the avae olih. aqrundL the Pnnoat @6 to orn 6 nand oyt powtu oltt sotd ld.p.nd.,t floot hr ost..d tu dnd andLtont by 21/11/2021, lntasthse t deky doeb h@ noj4re", caut ordq eov.thhdt poti.!/suid.tinet detaar\ enedhethe sutt dNtoenhiolth? *ot{ 4 the .ohphtton olthe Ptujet it,lztayed d!. b th.

Ptunat.. :hott b. entiued b the exEnsor aldnt tar d.tiv.ry aI p5sasi olthe sditt kdepehd4t th. ^uad* oeEd o^tl ornrm thd. h th?

4at t bmn$ inpdnbte lot .h?

Pronottt b rt obove ner.ared dnd pa\.

Lhen Lhr uuabwt elund b the Aiknt . the c ne lnor 4.n!dt b! the Pranaftt tran th. atlonee ||thu t)n!t- abrur :kh t{ ilataa ur har rhtnt dat: ra.

Alb, .eltnd 4 .h' n'\':l pdilb!theAlldfue'th.Alhtea9'$lhdh{/ rdtu*d oad ds.horqld hon at tL\ rbnllLar inptenent the PnEd dL? ra lo t hoe!rc lat 13.

Due date oI deliv€ry oI Total amount paid by the complainant 24.11.2024 (As per possession clause mentioned Rs i 96.q8 658/- allotment lette. on 37 page ol 1002.2024 Rs.39,6s,855/- (As alleged by the complainant in the e no.

12 ofthe complarn0 t5 Occupanon certificate l'612.2423 16.

B.

Facts of the complalnt 3.

The complainanthas made the following submissions: 'I-otal sale consideration 12 14 *HARERA S-eunusaAM residenti.l floors lrom the pondent.

There are fraudulent Complaint no.

6624 of 2022 l.'lhal rhe rp\pondenr published verydrrrdclrvebrochure.hrghhghtrngrhF Independent Residential Floors to be known as 'Irdependent Floors ot DLr Alomedo' situated at Sector 73, Gurugram, and Haryana.

The respondent claimed to be one ofthe best and finest in construction and one ofthe leading realestate developers ofthe country, in order to lure prospective customers including the complainants to buy independent E representations, incorre s, incorrect and tehents iD the bro.hure.

The complainant5 invite artention thoriry, Gurugram to violation of Section 12 oftheAct,2 II e representatives of the out the 'lndependent ld class project The at the residential floor would be banded over of parking, common areas and other facilities.

They we sed bv their oral statements and nd ultimatelybooked a residentialfloor no.

D 6/.1A,rr first floorin BlockD,a4 BHK+ Study having a total ca.petarca of 236-7 46 square meter (2548 sq. ftJ at the rate of Rs.1,67,515.64l- per square meter [Rs.15,564.62 per sq. ft.) in Sector 73, Gurugram by paying Rs.10,00,000/' as booking amount via cheque no 000056 dated 08.11.2021.

The respondent issued a receipt dated 13.11.2021 to the complainantsandallottedcustomercode 533551 tothecomplainants. lll.

That the respondent issued an allotment lettet dated 22.71-2027 b rhe complainants and allotted residential floor no.

D ' 6/4 A at first floor, a 4 HARERA GURUGRA[/ Complaint no.

6624 of 2022 BHK + Study havinga carpetarea of225.109 square meter (2423 sq. fr.) for first floor and 11.637 sq. meter [125 sq. ft.) for basement, thus total carpet area of 236.746 sq. meter (2548 sq. fL), balcony area of 44 sq. meter and basement area of 21.699 sq. meter (not part of carpet areal alonswith parkins no.

D-6l4 A/SFPI, store no.

STR1 and staff room no.

SFR1.

The allotted residential floor of total carpet area of 236.746 sq. meter (2s48 sq. fL) was so y the respondent at a rate ot IV, tted residential floor are as under: d-cum-invoice summary dated of Rs.29,65,865.12l- irom the complainants for the allotted residenial floor.

Thereafter, the complainants made the payment of Rs.29,65,865/- via NEFT on 13.12.2021.

The respondent acknowledged the payment made towards the allotied floor no.

D-6l4 A having a carpet area of 2548 sq. ft. and issued a receipt dated 16.12.2021tothe complainants.

Rs.1,67,515.64l- pe. square me consider.rtion comes out to allotmen t letter 'Ihe dc 5.15,s64.52l- per sq. ft. er sq. ft.), thus total 6,58,658/- as mentioned in the The respondent issued n demar 25.11.2021 and demand payment _!1 6 J {}HARERA S-eLnrcnavr Complarnt no.

6624of 20zZ V.

That the complainants took a housing loan of Rs.2,60,00,000/- from Housing Board Fioance Corporation Limited (HDPC Limitedl for making paynent oi the sale consideration of rhe allotted residential floor.

The HDFC Limited approved and sanctioned rhehousing loan via terterdated 03.03.2022.

VI, That after receiving the app.oval ior housing loan from HDFC Limrted. the complainants sent a letter to respondent on 27 04 2022 seek ng demand letter ior the next instalment as the iunds were availabte ior dr.bJr\pmenr rs \oon r\ they receive the dFmand tpIpr tor rhe J]lur."d floo..

Also, HDFC Limitedwas offering early disbu rsemenr benefits ro rhe cla,m, and that was why, rhe complajnants were will,ng ake the payment at the earliest.

The relevant part ofthe letter dated 27.04.2022 sent by the complainants is complainants which they wantec complajnants were will,ng to ma ( t hq aaan4 re Ab- hrdph !h6 (tuh 4tud)t qr bt qaob t aart xkn 1@ r That the complainants sentvarious follow-up emails dated 03.05-2022, 74.05.2022 and 04.06-2022 to the respondent, requesring for d€mand lefter for next instalment as they wanted to make the payment at the earliest and delaying the payment will increase their interest rate for home loan.

But, the respo.dent did not bother to reply to their leners, emails and phonecalls despite repetitive requests made by them.

That the respondent sent a lette. dated 06.06.2022 to the complainanrs wherein therespondetrt mentioned that due to certain errors/mistakes/ V]II i*HARERA S-eunuennl,l aomplarnrno 6624 of 2022 oversight in the allotment letter dared 22.71.2021, the carpet area mentioned was incorrect and intormed the complainants that 2148.785 sq. ft. [199.647 sq. meter) is the new carper area ofthe allotted floor at a total price including CST of Rs.3,94,42,567 l-.

42,567 l-.

The respondenr without giving any valid jus$ncation and reasoning ofthis maior €hange in the carpetarea (more than 15%) ofthe allotted floor co nveniently alleged it as an er.orlmistake/oversight in the allotmenr l€trer and no equivalent respondent increased the ra et area of the allotted floo. by around 18olo (from Rs. e meter to Rs.1,97,559.759 es as been explained rn IX r,ty That as per €lause 1.6 ofthe terms and condltions, mentioned at page no.

4 of the allotment fetter states thal "the carpet areo, bolcony ateo and verondoh oreo of the lndependent Residentiol Floor are as per approwd building plans- tf there is ony increase in the corpet area which is not more than S% olthe caryet area ofthe Independent Residentiol Floot ottoued, Ihc Pronoter nay denand that Jron th?

Allotre? as per next ntlestone oJ reducl.on wd\ mrde rn rhe rate o[ crrper dred On the ronfidn rt fi& HARERA GURUGRAIT/ complainants for signatures on the agreement.

The agreement was prepared forthe allotted residential floor no.

D- 6/4Aat firstfloor, havins x xt the payment plon- All the nonitary odjustmentshall be made atthe sone rate per square meter as per agreement lar sale-" The above clause makes itclea. thatwhen the area ofthe residenrialfloor increases, the respondent will charge additiona I a mou nt for that increa se in area lrom the complaiDants.

Similarly, based on rhe above claLrse, rn case of decrease in area ol the residential floor, the total cost of the residential floor will decrease and the respondent should charee equivalendy less amount ofthe res,dential floor from the complainants Butcontraryto itsown termsand conditions, the respondenrredLrced the area ofthe aUotted floor by more than 15% (from 236.746 sq. meter to 199.647 sq. meter) and illegally and fraudulently increased the r e o, carpet area by around 18% (from Rs.1,67,515.64 per sq meter to Rs.1,97,559.759 per sq. meter). q. meter). 'Ihatthe complainants objected to th e fraudulen t and unlawfulactions oi the respondent and demanded for valid justification from the respondent.

They madevarious phone calls and sent letters and emails ro the respondent butthe respondentdid not rephed to the concerns olrhe That the respondent sent the agreement for sale on 09.09.2022 lo rhe 2744-785 s9- k (199-647 sq. meter) as the Rs.18,3 s3.92l- per sq. ft. (Rs-7,97,559-7591- price including GST of Rs.3,94,42,567 l-.

XII.

That the complainants have approached occasions and requested to charge the total new carpet area at a rate of per sq. meter) with the total the respondent on various price ofthe allotted floor at + o1202, I}HARERA iseunuennl,r the same rate [Rs.1,67,515.64l- per sq. merer/Rs.15,564.62/- pet sq. ft.) as meDtioned in the allotment letter dated 22.11.2021 and also in the Receipt dated 76.72.2027, ttom the complainants.

The respondent is responsible and accountable to the terms and conditions prescribed ,n the allotment letter.

The respoDdent did not reply to the concerns and requests made by the complainants and even failed to provide a valid behavrour of (he resp minal liability under the lndran Criminal Dispensat,on e conduct of the respondent rs Compla nt no 6624 of2022 justification of alleged error/mistake/oversjght about the carpet area mentioned in the allotment letter. xIL That the respondent has che omplainants knowiDgl), and has iaken monies by dec nt representations, given to provrde a resrdenndl [2s48 sq. ft.] at a rate of Rs.1,67,516/ per sq tly reduced the area. floor of 236.746 s meter (Rs.1s,565 Dney &om the complarnanc. ound 18q0.

This fraudulent suspect. wilfull), unfa,r and arbitrary, deficient in every.r.rnner i.d requisitions made by the complainants.

XlV.

That the complainants hereby seekto redress the various forns oflegal omissions and illegal commissions perpetuated by the respondent/seller /builder/promoter, which amount to unfair trade practices, breach of co each of contract and are actionable under the Acl 2016. ln the pres€nt circumstances, the complainants have been left with no other option but scandalous.

They have lost faith, confidence and trust in the responde.t as the respondent is continuously deceptive and non responsive to the I}HARERA S-arnuennv Complainr no 6b24 or2022 seek jusrice at rhe Haryan1 Real E(rare Regutdtory Authority at Gurugram, Haryana.

C.

Relief sought by the complalnants: 4.

Thecomplainants have sought following relief: i.

Direct the respondent/developer to charge from the comptajnants ar the rate of Rs.1,67,515.64l, per sq. meter (Rs.15,564.62l- per sq. tt.l as .ommitted by the respondent in the allotment letter dared 22.11.202t and also in paymenr recejpt dated 16.12.2021 tbr rh. allotted residential floo., instead of Rs.1,97,559.759l- per sq meter [Rs.18,353.92l-per sq, feet] calculated as per the revised carpet ar.a of 2148.785 sq. ft. (199.547 sq. meter) mentioned in respondenfs letter dated 06.06.2022.

D'rect the respondent/developer to provide rhe same carper lrea ol 225.109 sq. meter for first floor and 11.637 sq. meter aor basement, thus totalling carpetarea of236.746 sq. meter (2548 sq. ft.l, balcony area of 44 sq. meter and basement area of 21.699 sq. meter to the complaiDants for the allotted .esidennal floor aor a toral consideration ofRs.3,9658,658/-, as committed by the respondent rn the allotment letter dated 22.11.2021 and also jn payment recerln dated 16.12.2021.

Direct the respondent/developer not lo charge any interest on th. delay payments as the complainants rather sought demand letter ibr next instalment from the respondent v,a letter dated 27.04 2022, when no paymentwas sought from the complainant/allottees. u HARERA GURUGRA[/ Complarnt no.6h24 of 2022 5.

D, iv.

Directthe respondent to execute theag.eemenrfor sale arthe rate of Rs.1,67,51s.64l- per sq. meter IRs.15,564.62 per sq. ft.) as mentioned in the allotment letter dated 22.11. ted 22.11.2021 and also in payment receipr dated t6-7?-2021- v.

Direct the respondent to pay legal expenses ol Rs.5,00,000/- incu rred by the complainants.

On the date oihearing, theautho.ityexplained to tbe respondent/ promorer about the contraventions as alleged to have been committed in .elarion ro section 11[4][a] oathe Act to plead guilty or not to plead guilty.

Reply by the respondent The respondenthas contested thecomplainton thefollowing grounds: l.

That the respondentis a reputed and renowned realestate developer enjoying an impeccable reputation in the real estate indusrry lor the disciplined and time bourd execution ofprojects undertaken by it.

The projects implemented and executed bythe respondentare considered to be archite€tural landmarks.

The respondent, to a considerable extent can b€ legitimately credited ior posirioning Curugram as the ''14illennium City". ll.

That the complajnants, through their property dealer, h:d approached the respondent after making detailed and elabo.ate enquirics $ith regard to all aspects oi the residential plotted colony known as "Alameda", Sector73, and Gu rugram" conceplualised and pronroted by the respondent.

After completely satisrying themselves with reg.rrd tu the project, competence and capability of the respondent to successfully undertake the construction, development and III {THARERA #-arnuenntt,t IV implementation of the said project, the complainants proceeded to bookan independentfloor in the said project.

That the complainants were provisionally allotted floor no.

D-6l4A, located on the firstfloorand constructed on a plot admeasuring386.25 sq. mete.s/461.96 sq. yds. vide allotment lefter dated 22.71.2021.

Booking amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by the complainants and sq. meteror25 225.

Complarntno.

6624or 2022 entletter that the carpet area et area o1225.109 sq. dmeasuring 236.746 ofthe floor allotted to eter or 2148.785 sq. ft. d to the compla,nants that er.

The rate per sq. te per sq. meter of the receipt acknowledging the said payment as weu as the schedule of omplainants, were enclosed along with the allotment letter That i nadvertentlv e istake, it was mentioned rn he [1 The actual rate per sq. meter ofsimilar units in the project were in the region ofRs.1.8lakhs per sq. meter to Rs.zlacs per sq. meter approx. while it was inadvertently communicated to the complainants that the rate was Rs1,67,515.04l- per sq. meter.

V.

That the respondent came to realise that the error in communicating the carpet area was not limited to the unit allotted to the complarnants but to several other units in the same project.

Accordingly, by letter dated 73.01.2022, received by this Authority on 14.01.2022, the cnrpet area was also incorrectly communicated to the coD\rarDrnt\ rrs HARERA GURUGRAIU aompla nr no 6624 ol l02l VI VII correct statement oi carpet areas of 29 plots in the prolect, and was conveyed to th is Auth ority.

The respo ndent requested the Authonty ro take on record the correct statement ol carpet areas and update thc online A to H form and deta,led project inaormation lorm of the That the error was communicated to the complainants telephonically and also through the sales agentand again by letter dated 06.06.2022.

The complainants were informed that the carpet area oa the floor is 2148.785 sq. ft. and that the total price including CSI is Rs3,94,42,567l .

By the said letler, the respondent apologised to the complainants for rhe inconvenience caused which has.esuked due to an unintentional and bona tide errorthat had taken place due to shee. oversjght.'lhe complainants were iniormed that in case the allotnrent as per the carpet ar€a and sale price as intimated through the letter dated 06.06.2022 was not acceptable to the complainants, the respondeDt would refundthe amount paid by the complarnants.

Enrail dated 08.06. ted 08.06.2022 irom the respondent whereby it was clarified to the complainants thatthere was no change in the dimensions of the floor as given jn the applicatior form i-e., the roo m area etc. and in th e usable That since there was no.esponse trom the com plainants accepti ng th c allotment as per the terms and conditjons communicated vide letter dated 06.06.2022, referred to above, the respondent dispatched the buyer's agreements to the complainants for execution under cover of letter dated 09.09.2022.

However,the complainants have not executed *HARERA S-eunuennul VII], That a copy ofthe buildlnS plans considered by the Town and Country Planning Departme.t under self-certifi cation provision of the Haryana Building Code 2017.

From a perusal ofthe same, it is evident that the FAR property area ofthe floor in question is 212.045 sq. meter.

After Complaint no.

6624of 2022 basement after deducting under the external walls, total ter or 2148.785 sq ft.

The building plans w oking of complarnanis wrongly mentioned in ion by the respondent by the compla,na nts. in the application fo.m ona fide oversight and not on account of any misrepr n or illegality on the part of the 199.627 sq. the buyer's agreeme.t till date and have instead proceeded to f,le the floor works out to187.90 sq. f and the 11.727 sq. meter in the IX.

Thatthus the claim ofthe complainants that the respondent shou ld be directed to charge from the complainants at the rate of Rs.15,564.62 /' per sq. ft. or Rs.1,67,515.64l-per sq. meter or that the respondent should be directed to provide total carpet area of 2 36.746 sq meter is misconceived and legally untenable.

The respondent is bound to construct the floor in accordance with the duly sanctioned building plans.

The respondent has already offered to refund the amount paid respondent.

There is no illegality rn so fnr as the respondenl is *s HARERA GURUGRA[/ Complainr no 6624 of20Z2 7. of20Z2 7.

IJ by th e complainants and js prepared to do th e same if the complarn ants are notwilling to accept the allotment as per the terms and conditions set out in the buyer's agreement forwarded to the complainants lor executioD.

There is no merit in the false and irivolous complaint filed by the complainants and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Copies ofallthe relevant documents have been filed and placed on record.

Their authenticity is notin dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on the basis of these undisputed documents and submission made by the 'Ihe complainants and respondent have liled the written submissions on 01-09-2A23 and2A-09-2023 respectivelywhi€h are taken on record and has been considered by theauthority while adjudicating upon the reliefsoLrght by the complainants. lurisdiction of the authority The author,ry observes that it has territorial as well as subject matter iurisdiction to adjudicate the plesent complaint.

E.l T€rritorial i urisdiction As per notincauon no.

1/92 /2017 -l't CP dated 14 72.2017 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real Estatc Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with olflces situated in GuruSram. ln the present case, the pro)ecr in question is situated within the planning a.ea of Gurugram dinri.t Therefore, thjs authority has complete territorialjurisdiction to dealwith the present complaint.

E.ll subiect m.tter jurisdiction E.

9. u HARERA GURUGRAIT/ Conplarntno.

6624o12022 10.

Section l1(a)tal of the Act, 2016 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

Section 11(4xal is rep.oduced as hereunder: section 11(4)[o) Be rcspansible far dll obliqotiohs, rcsponsibilities and fLnctiohs under the ptovisions ol thk Act or the rules ond rcsulations node thereunder o. to the olloneeospertheagteetuentJorsale,ortotheo$ociationolollottee,asthecose hat be, till the conveyohce oIo the apa. o the apa.tnents, ploE or buildings, os the co* na! be, to the olattee, ot the conmon oteos to the associotion aI dllottee or the canpetent authantt, as the cose nat ber 344 ofthe Act provides to ensure conplionce af the obligotions cost upon the pronolert the allottee an.l the realestoteoguts under this Acrund the rules ond resulotions nddethereundeL ' 11.

So, in view ofthe provisions ofthe Act of 2016 quoted above, rhe authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non- compliance ol obligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer if pursued by the complainants ata later stage.

F.

FindiDSs reg.rding rellefsouShtby the complrlDatrt F.l Directthe respondent/developer to cha.ge f.om thecomplaiDants it the Ete ol ns.1,67,515.64l- pe.sq. meter (Rs.1s,564.62l- per sq- ft-) as committed by the respondent in th€ allotment letter dated 22.11.2021 and also ln paymeot recelpt dated 15.12.2021 for the allotted .esidertial floo., iDstead ot nl.1,97,559.759l. per sq. met€r (Rs.18,353.92l- per sq. feGt) calculated as perthe revlsed carpet area of 2148.785 sq. ft- (199.647 sq. meter) mertloned in .espondent's lener dared 06.06.2022. f.!l Direct the espoDdent/developer to provide the saDe c.rpet area of 22s.109 sq. meter for first floor and 11.637 sq. meter for basement th6 totalling caipet area ot236.746 sq. meter (254a sq. ft-), balcony area of 44 sq. heter and basement arGa ot 21.699 sq. meter to the complalnants tor the allotted resldendal floor for a total consideration ofRs.3,96,54,654/-, as committed by the respondent in the allotnent letter dated 22.11,2021 and also in payment re.eipt d.red 16.\2.2021.

F.IU Dlrect the respondcnt/developer not to charye .ny lnterest on the delay paymenBas the complainaDts Fther sought demand letter for nexr lnstalment from the respondent vla leftet dated 27.04.2022, wheo no paymentwas sought from the complalnant/aUottees.

F,lV Di. .

F,lV Di.ect the respordeDt to execute th€ agre€ment for sal€ attbe rate ot Rs.1,67,515.64l. persq. meter IRs.1s,564.62 per sq. fL) as mentloned in the allotmert letter dated 22.11,2021.Dd also in payment receipt dated 16.12.2021, 12.

The above-mentioned relief sought by the complainants are being taken together as the findings in one relieiwill definitely affect the result ofthe other reliefand th€ same be,ng interconnected. *HARERA #-arRUGRArtl .llotment letter date Rs.3,96,58,658/ .

Th Complarntno.

6624of 2022 I sale consideration of 9.65,865/- agarnst the On consideration of the documents available on record and submissions nradc byboth the parties, the coin were allotted a plotbear,ng no.

D6l4A, lirst floor, in bloc measur,ng 2548 sq. ft. vide ment is annexed but As per clause 7.1 of the unexecuted agre Dossession ol the unit occupat,on certificate in resp equired to hand over respondent has obtained the ed unit ofthe complai.ant on 06.12.2023 and thereafter, has offeredthe possession on 10.02.202a.

1a.

DurinC proceedingdated 31.05.2023, the counsel fo. the complarnant stated that a unit admeasuring 225.109 sq. meters plus basement was allotted to the complainant at a total consideration of Rs.3,96,58,658/ on 22.11.2021 vide allotment letter of the same date.

The details ofallotment specifically mentioned the rate ot Rs.1,67,515.64l- per sq. meter of the carpet area.

The plot area on which the independent floor was to be constructed was mentioned as 386.25 sq. meters.

However, vide letter dated 06.06-2022, the complainants were informed by the respondent that p *HARERA s-crnrnnnnt Complaintno,6624of 2022 the carpet areaofthe independent floor is in fact 2148.785 sq. ft. while the total price including GST would be k.3,94,42,567 /-.

The complainants were seeking the allotment of the original carpet area at the price mentioned against the same vide allotment letter dated 22. dated 22.17-2021- The counsel for the respondent stated that the error on the part of the respondent w.r.t the carpet area and price was inadvertentand the similar error occurred not only in thi i n formation of which was duly for updating in the registration allotment document During pro€eeding d tter but in 29 other cases the ERA Gurugram on 13.01.2022, r lurtherstated rhat no BBA or ,rgreement pursuant lo t parties and tbe error complarnant cannot that on 06.06.2022, e allotment letter is incorrect and the correct atotalsaleconside.ation of Rs.1.9a,42 566/-.

By revis carpet area and the total sale rh consideration, the .espondent lncteased the rate of ca.pet area ironr Rs.1,67,515.64l per sq. meter to Rs.1,97,s59l' per sq. mete..

The counsel lor the complainant stated that the complainants are seeking allotment ol the original carpet area at the price mentioned against the same allotnrent letier dated 22.11.2021.

The counsel ior the respondent had filed list ot documents.

Written submissions has already been flled by the respondent It draws attention towards page 4 of the written submissions and stdted that the al1 the four floors ofthis Plot oaland ior the same carpet area re 199.627 sq. meter and there is no unit, whose carpei area is around 236 vl. lrHARERA S- crnrcnnur Complarntno 6624.f 2022 On realization,the said error, thatwas notlimited to the unitallotted to the meter.

As per building plans approved by the DTCP, the propertyareaofthe floor in question is 212.405 sq. meter.

After deducting the areas under external walls, the carpet area ofthe floor works out to 199.627 sq. meter, including 11.727 sq. meter of basement area.

But inadvertently, the area was wrongly mentioned in theapplication form.

13.01.2022 conveyed to this A carpet areas ol29 plots in the and detailed project in .ertifl. n .ertifl.ate has alrerdv nlimating the correct statement of also update onlrne A to H form r srated thar occupatron has been co mpleted and n form and allotment by the complainants.

The tli not on accountufdny mrsrepresenration or espondent.

In case the allotment as per the ca ce is not a(cepred by the complainants, the respondent etund th€ amount pa,d by the complainants.

No BBA or agreement has been signed between the parties.

The counsel for the comp the allotment letter isso conditions ofauotnent and s3me is signed by both the panies and henc€ is a binding conlract between both the parties and now respondent cannot take any plea, which are beyond the terms and conditions of the allotment letter.

Further the allottee wilhes to continue in the project and is not interestin refund the pald up amount.

17.

In light of the afore said circumstances, the author,ty observes that rhe dispute between the parties is with regard to decrease in carper area and increase in amount.

The complainants in rheir complainr have claimed possession ofthe plot in terms ofallotment lener dated 22.tt.zo2t. on the other hand the counsel for the respondent brought to th€ norice of the Authority that similar allotment letter was issued to 28 and othe.s allottees in the said project in which the area and the price ofthe plot was wrongly mentioned ,n the allotment letter and the said misrake was brought to rhe notice otthe allottee(s) as weU asthisAhthority and the respondent has also updatedthe sane in theAto Hformand the detailed project ,nfo rmatio n..

18.

Afterconsideringthe above, theAuthorltylsoftheview that the sa,d project is registered by this Authority as pet fr:o,n ol sanction under sef. cettwation dated 05,08.2021, vide registralion no.

59 of 2021 dated 2r.09-2021 and valid up !o 24.1r.2021, thereaket rhe respondent /promoter has requested before thisAuthority to change the ca.pet area in A to H form and the detailed project information on 14.01.2022.

4.01.2022.

So, the contention of the respondent/promoter to request for correction ofcarpet area in A to H form and the detailed pmjecl informat,on on 14.01.2022, is he.eby rejected as it is a well settled law that 'lvo on e con take benelit out olhis own wrong".

Fwther, ther€ is no provisions oithe Act of2015 and the Rules of 2017, which prescribes that after registering the project any rhanges/amendment can be done by the Authority.

Moreover, the Authoriry cannot ignore that the respondent company has obtained the occupation certificateon 06.12.2023, and the offered the possession on 10.02.2024.

19.

Further, during proceeding dat€d 03.09.2024, rhe counsel for the complainants stated that the compla,nants are will,ng to take possession ot ffiHARERA S eunuennv Compla'nrno 6624 of 2022 ITHARERA S- arRUGRArr/ Complainr no,66Z,1or2022 20. the allofted unit as per offer oipossession letter dated 10.02.2024, sublect to the charging of price at the rate given jn the allormeni letter ie Rs.r,67 ,s15 /-.Vt 97.tztt - After, considering the above said factual and legal circumstances ol the case. the Authority hereby directs the respondent to handover the physical possession of the allotted plot to the complainants in rerms of occupanon . errifi, are dJr"d O5-12 2o)3 at rhe rdte agreed berwe.n rhe paflier vrd" arrormFnr renpr o-red 22.1l.20zr i.e.. tu.r.b- s rs.b,rfnl;S#."" ' further directed to issue a fresh statement of account at the abov. ratc p.ovided in the allotment lelter with the carpet area as per o.cupanon certificate of the allotted plotofthecomplainanrs within a period of30 days rrom the date ofth,s order.

F.V DIrect the respoDdent to pay le8al expenses of Rs.5,00,000/ inrurred by the complainaDts, The complainants are seeking reliel w.r.t. compensation in the above mentioned reliefs.

Hor'ble Supreme Court ol lndia in case titled as M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers PvL Ltd. s PvL Ltd.

V/s Stote oJ UP & Ors- (2021-2022(1) RCR(C) 357r, has held that an allottee is entitled to clainr compensation &litigation chargesunder sections 12,14,18 and sectron l9 which is to be decided by the adjudicating ofiicer as per section 71 and the quantum oi compensation & Iitigation expense shall be adjudged by thr adjudlcating offcer having due regard to the factors mentioned in secnon 72.

The adjudicat,ng officer has exclus,ve jurisdiction to deal wirh rhe complarnts in respect oa compensation & legal expenses.

Therefore. ior claimjng compensation under sections 12, 14, 18 and section 19 oithe Aci 21 lrHARERA S-arRuGRA[,l Complainrno.6624 o12022 the complaina.ts may nleaseparate complaint before Adjudicating 0mc€r under section 31 read with section 71 ofthe Act and rule 29 ofthe.ules.

G.

Dlrectlonsofth€Authorlty 22.

Hence, the authority hereby pass€s this orde. and issue the following directions under section 37 ofthe Act to ensure compliance of obliSat,ons cast upon the promoteras per the fu.ction entrusted to the authority under I se(t'on 3a(0: ll.

The complarnants are d,r ay the outstanding amountwithln Rs.|,67,515.6a/-s plot of the complai tted 1 :s witl s directed to handover the physical rlot to the complainants in terms of 06.12.2023 at the rate agreed between e.t letter dared 22-ll.2t)21 t.e dent is further d,rected to issue a lresh above rate provided in the allotnr.nt per occupation certificate ofthe allotted rin a period of30 days from thc date of allthe outstanding dues, t possession of the allotted a fresh statement ofaccount.

After clcaring he respond.nt shallhandove. the phyncal plot and to getthe conveyance deed oflhe allotted unit executed in his favour in tems of section 17(1) of the Act of 2016 on payment of stamp duty and reglstration charges as applicable.

IlL The respondent is directed to execute the buyer's agreement within a period of60 days in terms ofagreement to sell specified in the Rules of 2077. s of 2077. ffHARERA 9F- eunuennv Complaintno,6624of 2022 lV.

The rate ofinterest chargeable ftom the allottees by the promoter, in case of default shall be charged atthe prescribed rate i.e., 11.10% by the respondent/promoter which is the same rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottees, in case ofdefauh i.e., the delayed possession charges as per section 2(za) ofthe Act.

23.

Complaint as well as applications, ifany, stands disposed offaccordiDgly.

24.

File be consigned to registry. u,t-P ijay Kumar Goyal) , Curugram Haryana Real Dated: 03.09.20 24 HARERA GURUGRAM ( I