SMT KANCHAN AND JITENDER SINGH vs ANANT RAJ LTD.

*HARERA S- eunuennv 1.

Smt.

Kanchan 2.

Sh.litender Kumar Regd. olfice:Cp-1, Se Haryana-122051.

BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULA AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Both R/o:House No.-394, Sector 7, tirban Estate, Gurugram CORATI: S h.i Ashok Sangwan APPEARANCEI Sh.

N4ukulKaushik Sh.

Umalg Mahendra ORDER 1.

The present complaint dated 12.01.2023 has beeD filed complainants/allotte€s under section 31 of the Real (Regulation and Developmentl Acl 2016 [in short, the with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate ( Dcvelopment) Rules, 2017 (in short, the Rulesl lor /ai '.t niP section 11t4)(al ofthe Act wherein it is i,fer aiio prescribed Compa nrNo 7c23 ol202Z RERA 2022 ,2024 Estate Complainants RA RAIV E G AR URU promoter shall be responsible lor all obligations' responsibjlities and tunctions as provided under the Provision of the Act or the Rules and regulations made there under or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed tnter se.

Unlt and proleci rclated detalls The particulars of the proj€ct, the details of sale consideration' the amount paid by the complainants, date of proposed handing over the possession and delay pedod if any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: Sr. t- 1;,"*,* -t 1.

Name ofthe Proiect I Haryana.

License no 71 oi2008 Dared-25.03 2008 Gurugram, Nature of the Projec'l Group Housing ColonY 15.575 acres l B. ,L, t Registered - Li. -]- DTCP license lunrtadmea Apartment no-002, Tower-N, noor- Ground [As on page no.45 ofcomPlaim) 1310 sq.ft- IsuPer-Areal 794.81 sq.ft. lCarPet Areal (As on page no.45 ofcomplaintl I suring Derails *HARERA t$-cLrnLrcnAtr,r ComplaintNo.

7923 of 2022 L E Suilde. buyer agreement 42.04.20t9 daue A POSSESSSION OF TEE APARTMENT FOR RESIDENIIAL USACD: a,1 sche.lule lor possession ol the soid Apdrtment Io.

Resi.lentiol Utuge The Conpon! ogrees ond understonds thot .nell aehverr al poste\stun aJthe Apattnenr ra the Allottee(s) ond the connon o. connon o.eos ta the oseciorion of ottottees or the onlpetent outharky, os the cav no! be , at ptovtdetl uhd4 Rule 2(1)A of Rutes, 2017, t\ the eltence of the As.eemenL the ]\on.Let ossurcs to hondovet pase$tar ol the Apdnnent olang with rcad! and eonplcte with olt sPettitatbns, on@ities ond locilitjes ofthepro)ect tn ploLe on 16.04,2019, unless there n dttur rt foilure due ta wor, lload atausl,t, lne clctone, eorthquok. ar dnr ather Lulunttr couvd b! nattre olle.ting thc tesula. deve lopneht ol the rculestote ptolect Farce Mjeure", coutt a..te$. core.nnent policy/sridelines, decitians at ant othcr reoson beyond the cantral aJ the Can\ 1! wh)ch ollects the reltula. devetop,nent al thc l0 Due date of Dosscssion I6.08.2019 [As on page no.49 olcomplaint) Rs.55,69,517l' (As on pase no.45 ofcomplaintl Rs.56,04,924 /- [As on pase no.47 ofcomplaint] Total saleconsideration Total amount paid by the Oc(upauon cerUllcate *HARERA S- crnlrcnnu ComplaintNo.

7923 of 2022 24.t1.2079 (As on page no.70 of€omplaintl 30.11.2019 [As on page no.73 ofcomplaintl Facts ofthe complalnt: The complainants made the following submissions in the complaintl B l That the representatjves of respondent approached the complainants in 2019 and informed that some units are available with the responde,tt which are in the final stage ol construction and their finishing would be completed in 2 3 months in the project Maceo, Sector-g1, Gurug.am.

Ihe representatives also assured that all the plans have been sanctioned and the company had also applied for Occupation C.rtificate on 04.10-2018 and 19.04.2019. 'l hat believing upon the assurances, the complainants bookcd an apartment bearing no.

N-002 on Ground Uoor in l'ower N having super area of 1310 sq.ft along with 1 covered car parking at the total sale consideration of Rs.S5,69,517l' along with rll charges.

The complainants paid a sum oi Rs.5,50,000/ as booking amount and an allotment letter was issued by the rcspondent on 15.05.2019.

5.05.2019.

Thc complainants pa,d a sum ol Rs.21,97,258/- on 25.07.2019 as per the demands raised by the respondenl.

An agreenent to srl. was executed between the complainants and the respondent on 02.08.2019.

By this time the complainants have paid a total IIt. !THARERA *!b- cunrnnnrl aomplaint No 7c23 o12022 amount ol Rs.z7,47,258/- As per clause 8.1 of the agreement, the respondent assured to handover possession ol the unit alongwith common areas with all specifications, amenities and facilities on 16.08.2019.

The respondent also assured that bcforc 16.08.2019, the respondent would obtain the occupation .ertificate from the coDcerned department.

As per the Buyers ABrpemen'.

I o.08 201c wd( the due date of po..esion.

IV. l hat neither tbe furnishing work of the flat w:1s completed nor lvas lhe occupation certificate obtaired.

Thus, on the due date ol ol possession, the respondent was not in position to deliver the actual physical possessionoftheunittothecomplainants.

V. l hat the respondent obtained the Occupation certificate ol thc l'ower N on 28.11.2019.

Thaton 30.11.2019, the respondent'n a hasty manner issued a letter oi offer of possession cum demand notice to the complainants and demanded Rs.29,90,903/ lrom the complainants as outstanding amou nt.

VL That the complainants paid a sum of Rs.25.65,000/ on 06.12.2019 against the demand raised by the respondent.

Also, the complainants paid Rs.2,36,608/- on 18.012020.

The complainants visited the unit and we.e shocked to see the statc of affairs.

The respondent also demanded full and lindl amount without completion ol the finishing works.

The apartment !!as .ot in livable condition at the time ofolfer of possession.

VII.

That the complainants also paid the power backup charges amountins to Rs.28,029/- and Rs.28,021/ on 28.01.2020 & 31.01.2020 respectively.

1hereafte., the conlplainants got a nrail HARERA GURUGRAl\/ TX x lrom Mr.

Parag Sharma representative of the respondent, conforming that finishing work i.e. work i.e. f,nal coat oi paint, sanitary fitting & fixture, wooden flooring in master bedroom, ch,naware etc in the unit has been completed and the apartment is ready for handing over of possession.

The said €mail confirmed that the fin,shing work was not completed at the t,me of issuance of letter of offer ofpossession dated 30.11.2019.

VIIL On visiting the site for inspection, the complainants were shocked and surprised that there w€re several deficiencies in the apartment but the respondent company without complet,ng the finishing works otrered possession as the kitchen granite slab was not constructed lnstead of promised covered parking they offered open car parking with shelter which was totally contrary to terms of application agreement.

The complainants vide an e' mail dated 27.07.2020 highlighted rhe said deflciencies to the Ihat the brother of the complainant again visited the unil on 01.08.2020 and met Mr.

Parag Sharma, representative ot the respondent who offered a covered a car parking in different block far away from the tower ofthe complainant and the samc was separated by a revenue road.

Thus the rcspondent failed to provlde amenities promised at the time of execution ol dgreFment lo sel' or rprrrmenr dated 02.08 201q. '1he respondenr vide e-mail dated 07.08.2020 informed t the available opiions o f th e car parking but did not disclose inwhich tower the parking space is available.

So, the respondent ofered a car parkins and refund ofaD amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

The samc *HARERA S- cunlcnnnt Complarnr No 7921orZ022 lvas accepted by the complainants vide e'majl dated 27.08.2020.

However, the kitchen slab was still pending as granite was not procured by the respondent.

Further, there was severe seepage in diningroom, bed room and outsidethe shait area.

XI.

Even after acceptance olthe open car parking and refund of lts 1,00,000/-, the .espondcnt did not rcfund thc amount ol Rs. unt ol Rs.1,00,000/ and also did not complete the finishing work ofthe x1l ]'hat the complainants again sent an reminder e mril to rhe respondent to handover possession ol the unit but the respondent chos€ not to pay any heed to request ot thc complainants.

The respondent replied that it needs a dayt nnre to understand the issue and get back to complainants with updates bui never responded back which proves that the respondent intent,onally delayed the handing over of xlll l'he complarnants sent 9 remlnders e-mails between 05.06 2022 ra 23.A8.2022 to the r€spondent requesting to handover lhc physical poss.ssion along with interest on delay payment but the respondent neither respo.ded to the said e mails nor handed ov€r possession of the unit.

On 2308.2022, the respondent sent an e-mail that they offered possession through lerrer dated 30.11.2019 and also intimated that the unit has been rcady lor physical possession since 31.01.2020.

The said admission of the .espondent itsell stated that thc unit wrs not ready on the due date ofpossession i.e.

16.08.2019.

Further front the abovementioned € mail itwas also clear that the respondent failed to complete the finishing work of the un,t within the pr€scribed time, which shows that the respondent is in default.

Vide e'mail dated 23-08-2022, an outstanding amount of Rs.1,04,227 /- on account of CAM charges was made by the respondent.

Furth€r, an outstanding on account ol holdine charges amounting to Rs.l,743lA/..

Despite several artempts, the respondent is not interested in handing over possession of the unit to the complainants.

C.

Reliefsought by the complalmnts: ,1.

Thc complainanl has sought following relief(s): i.

Direct the respondent to handover physical possession ot the unjt to the complainants. ii I)irectthe respondent to paydelayed possessjon charEcs. rii.

Ilrre.t the respondent to pay Rs.1,00,000/' on account ol lcgal D. l lcgal D.

R€ply by respond€nt: *HARERA S cLrnrcnnu ComplaLnrNo 7923of z02z II I, The respondent by way ol written rcply has nradc ibllowrng That the respondeot developed a residential project in Sector- 91, Curugram, Haryana namely "MACEo".

ThatAnant Raj Limited in dre year 2020 demerged its project division into Anrnt Ral GloblL Limited by which the said project vested with M/s Anant Raj Global Lrmrted and the same is now known as M/s TARC Limjted. 'l'hat the complainants approached the respondent and booked .r unit bearjng no.002 situated on the ground floor. loc.rted in ower N, having super a.ea of 1310 sq.ft. for a total consideralion of HARERA GURUGRA[,4 a.m.l3iniNn 7921 o12022 TTI Rs 55,69,517l- and an allotment letter dated 15.05.2019 was issued to the complainants.

Pursuantly, the agreement b sale dated 02.08.2019 was executed between the complainants and the The respondent was supposed to handover possession of the unrt on 16.08.2019.

Ilowever, the delay in offering possessjon olthe unit was completely subie.t to Force l4aieure condition which were beyond control olthe respoDdent and the same has been stipulated in Clause 8.1 oithe agreement.

It is imperative to mention herein that in the year 2019, thc project had to underwent unforeseen and adverse circumstances causing the progress and completioo of the project to be hampered and delayed because ol which the possession of the unit could not bc handed over within the stipulated period.

The delay was caused on account olthe order passed by the Hon'ble Nahonal Creen Tribunal, the Hon'ble EDvironmental Pollution (Prevention and Controll Authority and the Centre Pollution Control Eoard which issued vdnous directions to builders to take additional precautbns and sreps to curtail pollution.

0D account of the aforementioned reasons, the progress ol th. project was abruptly hampered.

All th€se events led to suspens'on and stoppage of work on several occas,ons, which also resu.t. so resu.t.d in labourers and (ontractors abandoning work very olten.

As a result of various di.ections irom the authorities on several occasions, regarding water storage and pollution control etc.

The labour.rs and contracto.s abandoned the works, and the respondenr had to tv. *IARERA S-clrnlrcnru Complarnr No.

7a2l o12022 run from pillar to post in order to find.ew contractors and labourers, thus afl€cting the progress ofthe project.

VL That the respondent received the Occupation C€rtificate on 28.11.2019 and without delay the possession was offered to the complainants on 30.11.2019.

Ac€ordingly, the complainants visited the unit somewhere in 2020 alongwith the respondenfs .epresentative, wherein the unit was slightly unfinished due to the force majeure circumstances, a0d immediately acnon was taken ol the said unfinished work/defidancjes but again iailed to complete the sdme due to sudden COVID -lq pandemr,.

Vll.

That the compla,nants tried to conceal the delay on their part in makingthe requisite payments as per the payment plan.

As such, the complainants were in wilful default in remitting the remaining installments which were due and payable to the respondent in the very initialstage.

As a result, the respondentsent several "Reminde.

Letters" dated, 16.08.2019, 10.09.2079, 72.17.2079, 75.06.2020 and "Demand letter cum sewice invoices' dated, 09.07.2019,23.07.2019 and 07.01.2020 to the cornplainants.

Vlll.

The respondent is requesting the Authority to wave off the interest from theyear2019to 2021and,tis most humblysubmitted that the said unit is ready for the possession since 2022. tt is further pertinent to state that if the respondent is direrted to pay delayed possession charges to the complainants from the very initial payme.ts, the same shall further affect the respondent's abilty to offer possession to the complainants as the respondent has faced *HARERa &. eunuennur Complarnr No.

7921 of 2022 xt tx 6 u.

7. tx 6 u.

7. x Hence, the present complaint ought to be dismissed on the aforesaid grounds.

The relieis sought in the instant complainr mav be denied as the delay in the finishing works, paints, seepage erc. were merely subjectto Force Majeure.

That the.espondent had informed the complainants abour the finhhingwork ofthe finalcoat ofprint, sanitary fittings & lixrurcs, ivooden flooring in master bedroom, chinailare etc. in thc unrr vide email dated 14.07.2020 and the compla,nants have lailed to take possession since 2020.

Further, it is importandy ro state th.rr rhe complainants have failed to take possession olrhe unrt ai thc timc of offering the same and thereaft€r, the.omplainants have created an issue which is related to thecarparking.

Iioweve., the respondent the showing their bonalidc intenhon ro resolve the sard jssue made a statement to relund ol I1s.1,00.000/ (o the complainants.

Even the respondent had again isnred an email dated 23.08.2022 to the complainanrs sraring that the unir is complete and lurther r€questing to remit the dues belbrc rhe possession ofthe unit.

Copics oiall the rel€vant documents have been filed and pla.ed on record.

Their autheelicp is 9(B+!s€rlte. tlence, the complalnt can be decided on the basis of these undisputed documents and submission made by the parties.

Jurisdiction of the authorlty: The Authority obsenr'es that it has territorial as well as subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for rhe reasors given below. *HARERA S-eunuennu tompl,rnr No.

7c2l o12022 [.t ll Terrlto.lal iurisdicdon As per notification no.

1/92/20U-r'lCP dated 14.12-2017 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Curugram District for all purpose with offices s,tuated,n Curugram. ln the present case, the project in question is situated w,thin the planning area of Curugram district.

Therefo. .

Therefo.e, this authority has complete territorial iurisdiction to deal lvlth the present complaint.

E.ll subie.t matte r iurisdictlon 9.

Section 11(41(al ol the Act, 2016 provides that drc pronroter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

S.ction t 1[a][a] is reproduced as hereunder: B. tcsponsible lot dll abligatiant rcspantbilittes ond lunctions under the pt orstons ofthts Act or the tules dnd tesulottons ha.le thereundet or to the oltottee as pet the tgreenent lat ele, or ro the atsociation aJ atlauee os Lhe .ase na! be, tillthe conveyonce of oil the opartnents, plots ot buntlins:, xs rhe tase nuy be, to the ollattee, or rhe @nnoh ateos to the a\ro.iorion.l alknteeot the.ompetent oLthonry, osthecae nay be; 10.

So, in view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, the Authority has complete iurisdichon to decide the complaint resardiDg non- compl,ance ol obl,gations by the promoter leaving asidc compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer if pursued bythe complainantat alater stage.

F.

Findings on the ob,ectlons raised by th€ respondentl t.L obiection resardinE Force Maieuft condltlons, : HARERA GURUGRAI!1 Complarnt No.

7q2l orl022 The respondent'promoter has raised a contention that the handover of the unit was delayed due to force maieure conditions such as various orders passed by the National Green T.ibunal, Environment Pollution [Prevention & Control) Authority, shortage of labour and stoppage of work due to lock down due to outbreak of Covid 19 pandemic.

Since there were circumstances beyond the control of respondent, so taking,nto considerat,on the above-mentioned facts, the respondent be allowed the peiiod duringwhi.h his..nsrrn.rion act,vities cam€ to stand still, aid the said pe.iod be excluded.

8ut the plea taken in this regard is not tenable.

The due date for completion of proiect is calculated as per clause 8.1 of the agreement dated 02.08.2019, which is prior to the comin8 ofcovid- 19. covid- 19.

Though there have been various orders issued to curb the environment pollution, but these were for a short per,od oftime.

So, the circumstances/conditions after that period can't be taken into consideration tor delay in completionofthe proj€ct.

G.

Findings on the reliefsought by the complainants.

G,I Direct the r€spotrdent to handover physlcal possesslon of the unlt, G.ll.

Direct the respondotrt to pay delayed possession charg€s.

12. lhe aforementioned rel,ef,s are interrelated and thus are being addressed together.

In the present complaint, the compla'nants acqulred a unit numbered N'002 on the ground floor of Tower-N, measuring 1310 sq. ft, along with one covered car parking space, for a total sale consideration of Rs.

55,69,517l' in the proiect "Maceo' being developed by the respondent.

The un,t was allotted to thc HARERA GURUGRAN/ ComnlaintN.

792:l of 2022 complainants via an allotment letter dated 15.05.20r9, followed by the execution ofan Agreement to Sellbetween the complainants and the respondent on 02.08.2019.

According to clause 8.1 of the aforementioned agreement dated 02.08.2019, the respondent comm,tted to hand,ng over possession of the unit to the complainants by 16.08.2019.

The said clause,s reproduced below: ' A -7 sc hedule j'or posqsion ol the said Apo ttnent lot Residentio I Usote: Th e Canpon! ogreet ond unde6tonds that tinely d.livery of posysian al rhe Apottnent to the Allonee(s) ond rhe cannon oreas to the ossociotion al ollattees or the conpetent outhoriE, os the cose nar be, os provided undet Ruk 2 (1) {l) of Rutes, 2a17, k the esence ol the Aqrcehent. rhe t,ran.tet ossLtes to han.l over possesion oI the Aportnent alons \|ith ready and conplete common areo with oll specif.otions, oneniies ond locilitiet al the pratect in ploce on 16.03.2019, unles there is delay orfdiluredue to \|o.,llood, .lrousha frc, . sha frc, .lclone, earthquake or ony other coloniry coused by hoture ollectins the resulor developnent oI the reot estote protect "Force Maiuere", Court ordn, Governnent polict/guidelines, .lecisians or on! olhet rcosoh belond the contrololthe Conpah! which ollecB the resulor Aevelopment of the rcal enob protecL ' [Enphosissupplied] 13.

Therefore, the due date for handing over possession to the complainants was 16.08.2019.

The respondent obtain€d the occupation ce.tificate for Tower-N from the competent authoriti.s on 28.11.2019.

Subsequ€ntlx the respondent issued an offer of possession along with a derEnd latter to the complainants.

It is apparent from several payment receipts appended to the complaint that the complainants hav€ thus tar paid Rs.

56,04,924l against the total sale consideration of Rs.

55,69,517l', which exceeds 1000/0 of the total sale consideration forthe subiectunit.

14.

Upon receiving the offer of possession, the complainants visited the project site and identified severaldeficienc,es in their unit, such as seepage issues in the dinins room and the absence ofa kitchen slab, *HARERA P-crnrcnmr Complzrnt No.

79Zl of 2022 among others, which were duly communicated to the respondcnt through various emails on record.

The unit was unfinished and not in a livable condition.

Additionally, rhe car parking allotted to the complainants did not comply with the terms outlined rn the agreement dated 02.08.2019, as the agreement specined a covered parking space lvhile the respondent oifered an open space parkrng spot.

These concerns were brought to the attention of the respondent, who acknowledged them and assured that they would be rectified.

The respondent admitted in its reply that the unit was not prepared for possession at the time it was offered, and requesled the complainants for additional time to complete i!. mplete i!.

Furthermore, on page no 5, paragraph 13 of the reply, the respondent admitted that the unit had been ready for possession sincc 2022 buttheexact date is notspecified.

15. lhe Authoriry vide its order dated 11.10.2023, directed the respondent to del'ver possession of the unit to the complainants withjn 45 days after rectii,ing the deiects.

During the proceedings on 03.01.2024, rhe respondenfs counsel informed the Authority thirt possession of the unit had been handed over to the conlplainants on 14.12.2023.

This was subsequently confirnred by the complainants counselduring the proceedings on 08.05.2024 ln view ol the above, it is construed thnt the respondent tailed miserably to d.liver the possession ol the unit to the complainants 16.

In the present complain! the complainants intends to continue with the project and are seeking delay possess,on charges along rlth rnterest on the amount paid.

Proviso to section 18 p.ovides that IARERA GURUGRAI\I Complcint No 7q2l of 2022 where an allottee does not interd to withdraw from rhe proje€t, he shall be paid, by the promoter interest for every month ofdelay, rill the handing over of possession, at such rate as may be prescribed and ithas been prescribed underrule 15 ofthe rules. "Section fi:.

Retu of dnount ond.onpenntioa 134).

I the prcnot* foils to conplete or is unob]e to give possession of on aportnent, plor, or bu tldne, Pratded thot whete an otlattee does hot ntend to wthdras Iroh the p.ojeca he sholl be poi.l, by the pronokr, interettlor ever! nonth ofdelor, till the handing owr oI the passessian, ot such rate os 17.

Admissibility ofdelay possession cha.ges at prescribed rate of interest: Proviso to section 18 provides that where an allottcc do.s not intend to withdraw from the proj€ct, he shall bc paid, bv the promotcr, interest for every month of delay, till thc handing over of posscssion, at such rate as may be prescribed and it hrs been prescribed under rule 15 of the rules.

Rule 1s has b.cn reprodu. n reprodu.ed "Rule 1s.

Presribed Nte ol interest.

IProviso to section 12, se.tion 18 on.t sub se.tion 6) ond subsettion (7) oI seetion 191 Fo. the putposeolprovho to yction 12)section la;and \Lb sections @ ond O) ol ection 19, the 'int*st ot the rote p.e{tibed' sholl be the Stote B k of ln lia hbhest norgiDol cost of lendihg rate +2%.: Provded thot in case the stata pank ol lndio noryinol cost oI lqdinq rote IMCLR) is not ih tc, ir sholl be reploc.d bt such benchnark lending rotes which the stote Bank ol lndia not lx lron tine ta tine for lending ta the generol public.' 18.

The legislature in its wisdom in the subordinate legidation under the provision of,rule 15 ofthe rules, has determined the prescribed rate oi interest.

The rate of interest so determined by the legislature, is .easonable and if th€ said rule is followed to award the interest, it willensure unilorm practice in aU the cases. flTARER "-@- cltnltcnlv Complarnt No 7q23 of 1022 19 Consequently, as per website of the State Bank oi Indja i.e., b!!!!l bi!o.!n the marginal cost of lending rate (in short, I\4CLR) 20.

The definition olterm interest'as defined under section 2(zal of the Act provides that the rate ofinterest cha.geable from the allottee by the promoter, jn case oldefault, shallbe equalto the rate ofinterest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, iD crse of delault.lhe relevant sect,on is reproduced below: ''ka) tcre* nednstherotesolintercnpolahte h! the t^,hotct u Lheollo ee, asthe ca* muy be r. pto"ot.aa. . t ar r np pLt poy olthn. lob.e- (i) the rute af interest chorgeable ftoh the allottee by the p.anotcr, in coe al deJault, sholl be equdlto the rote afintere\t whtch thc prcnotet sholl be lioble to poythe ollottee, in cdse ol.lefatlt (r)the tntetest potable bythe promotet to the allottee sholl be ftanl thedote theprcnotet rcceived the anout ot an! part thercolrtt the date the uhount or part thercaf ohd tnte. ohd tnte.est thetear \ relLnded ond theint rest poyobk by the olloftee to the ptano4t sholl be lian the .lote the allottee dekul6 in poynent to the p.onaterttll the date it i5 poidi 21.

Therefore, interest on the delay payments from the complaininc shall be charged at the prescrib€d rate i.e., 11% by thc respondent/promoter which is the same as is being grdnted to the complainants in case ofdelayed possession charges.

22.

On consideration of the documents available on record and as on date i-e., 24-07 -2024 is 9 yo.

Accordingly, the prescribed rare of ,nterest w,llbe marginal cost oflending rate +2% i.e., 11ol0. submissions made regarding contravention of provisions of the AcL the Authority is satisfied that the respondent is in contravention of the section 1r(4)[a] ofthe Act by failing to deliver possessio. by the agreed'upon date as per Clause 8.1 of the agreement dated 02.08.2019.

According to the agreement, the respondent was HARERA ComplaintNo.

7923 o12022 GURUGRAI/ obligated to hand over possession of the unit to the complainants by 16.08.2019.

Despite recejvjng more than 100% oi the total salc consideration lor the unit, the respondent did not lulfll its obligation.

The respondent has failed to deliver possession oi the unit to the complajnants even after a delay of lour years.

Also. the offer of possession made by the .espondent on 30 11.2019 is not ir valid offer and is bad in the eyes of law as the unit was not completc 23.

Accordingly, the non'compliance ofthe mandatc containcd in s.cnon 11(4ltal read s,rtb proviso to section 18(1) of the Act on the part of the respondent is established. ln the interest ofjustice the Authority is of the vicw that the allottees, shall be paid, by the promotcr, interest lor every month of delay lrom due date of possession r.e, 16.08.2019 till lhe actualhanding over olpossession i-e., 14- t2 -2023, as per section 18(11 ofthe Act of2016 read with rule 15 ofthe rules 24.

Holding charyesi Further the Authority obs. ority obs.rves that the rcspondent is charging holding charges from the compldrnants.'lhe complainant/promoter is not entitled to charge holding chargrs from the respoDdents/allottees at any point oftime even after being pnrt ol the builder buyer's agreement as pe. law settled by llon'hle Supreme Court in crvil appeal nos.

3864- 3 889/2020 on 14 12.2020.

Thus, the respondent/promoter is d,rected not to charge holdinE charges from the complainants.

G.Ul.

Directthe respond€ntto paylitigation charges of Rs.1,00,000/_ * HARERA S-eunLnnnur 24.

The complainants are seeking the above menrioned retief w.r.r. compensation.

The Hon ble Supreme Court of India ,n Civit Appeal nos.

6745-6749 of 2021 titled as N/s Newtech Prornoters and Developefs Ltd.

V/s State ol UP & Ors.(supra) has held that an allottee ,s entitled to claim compensation and lit,gation charges under Sections 12, 14, 18 and Section 19 which is to be decided by the adjudicating ofiicer as per Section 71 and the quanrum of compensation and litigation expense shall be adjudged by the adjudicating oflicer havi.g due fugads to rhe factors mentioned in Section 72.

The adjudicating omcerhas exclusive jurisd,ction ro deal with the complaints in iespect ofcompensation and legal expenses.

Therefore, the complainants may app.oach the adjudicating officer lor seeking the relief of compensation.

H.

Directions ofthe Authorlty 25. ltence, the Authority hereby passes this order and issue the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations casted upon the promoters as per the functions entrusted to the authority under sectjon 34(il: The respondent is directed to pay interest for every month of delay from due date ofpossession Le., 16.08.2019 till the actual handing over ofpossession ,.e., 14.12.2023, as per section t8{1) ol the Acl or 2016 redd wirh rule l5 or rhe rules. rhe rules. lhe respondent/promoter is directed not to charge holdins charges from the complainants as per law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal nos,3864.3889/2020 on 14 12 2020 u HARERA GURUGRAIU iii.

The respondent shall not charge anything irom the which was not a part of the builder buyer agreement 02.08.2019.

26.

Complaintstands disposed ot 27.

File beconsigned to registry. [{ARER.A GURUGRAM ryAuthor,ty, Dated:24.07 O ol2i Complaint No.

7923 al 2022