VSR INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED vs MRS LEELAWATI

*HARERA S GUIIUGRAI/ BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGIJI-ATOPV AUTHORITY, CURUGRAM Rl -= -_-l VSR Jnl'.atecfi privrte l_rmrtcd & ahetan Swara & xirn Krrrl Chalrman ii HcR/r2a2/2024 L1 CORAM: ShriArun Kumar ORDER 1.

The order sha dispose off borh the complajnts titted as above filed betore this authoriry rinder section 31 ofthe Real Estate (Regutat,on and Developmentl Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as ,,the Acr,,l read with rule 28 ofthe Haryana Reat Esrate (Regularion and Developmentl Rules, 2017 (he.e,nafter reierred as ,the rules,,) tor viotation 11(4)(al otthe Ad wherein ir js inter atia prescribed thafthe shallbe responsible aoral its obtjgarions, responsibilities and to the allonee as per the agreement for sale execute.l inter se 04,04-202s VSR lnfrarech private Limite; VSR 68, Averue, Sector.6S, cu.ug; *HARERA S-eunuenqvr 2.

The €ore issues compldrnan(s) emanating foom them are sinilar in nature and the in the above referred matters are allottee ol the projects, namely, VSR 68, Avenue, Secto.6s, Curugram being devetoped by rhe same.espondent- promoterj.e.

VSR lniratech private Limited.

3.

The aforesaid complaints werecounterfited by thepafties againsr each other on accoLrnr of the buyer,s ag.eernenr executed between the parties in resped ofrhe sajd unit.

The tacts of both the complaints filed by rhe complainanrs are similar.

Out ofrhe above menrioned case, the particulars ot lead case CR/S364I2023 fltted as Le€tawafl vs. vsR Infrat€ch private Limtted are being taken rnro consjderation tor detenntning rhe righrs otthe parties.

A.

Unitand proiectr€tated details 4.

Borh the cases retate to one alloned unlt.

One among these is fited by the allottee and the otherone is fited bythe buitder, so far deciding both the cases, the facts of tirst cases are beiog taken.

Bur before that rhe particulars ot unit details, sale consideratjon, the amount paid by rhe complajnanr, dare of p. dare of p.oposed hand,ng over the possession, delay period, ifany, have been detaited in rhe following tabular io.m: Deraits VSR 68, Avenug Sector-68, Curugram Natureoftheproject RERA Regisrered/ Registered vjde registration no.

119 of2077 dated 28.oa_20 t7 License no. and vatidrry 4 ol 2012 dated 23.01_2OtZ c-,pr,i" il$ilrod;s, "ril_l S, N, l 2.

3 L l *HARERi. d[ ounuemv llnrrno.

5.

SA-4-27, 4ri fl oor, rower-A Unitarea admeasuring 587.280 sq. ft. fpage 28ofcomplaint] Date ofbooking 24.07.20r2 las perrnformatjon in SBA at Dac€ 28 orcomplaintl 30_07.2012 Date of Space Buver,s AAreemenr lPaSe 2, ur (ompl ,rnrl 25-0a.2013 S1! rue compony witt, based oi present plans and estinates contemplotes b parserson of Satd untL tu the Allotteets) ,ttthlh 76 monlhsolslgntng ol thts Asr"emenr ot wt.htn 36 monhs lroi .he dab of stort oI construc on ol the satd Buttdtng whtchever tair with o groce pertod of J monhs. \ubte.t b larce naleue evenL. d Goternn. lPage 36 ofconplaintl Dre d rte !r possessron El"f_fl laokalakdfrnt the dote oJ36 nonths oJ srgnlng of this Ag.eem.nt wittt o grace peiod oI 3 nonth os dob or stot.t. ol construction o1 Ae saia 6U d'np not on re@rd Totrl sJle consrdcrahon Rs.44,72,137/. lAs psAl,ormen( and SBA arpage 30 ano 5s ot compjarntl Amount paid bv the Rs.41,00,000/- Ic":g1]lN" 5364 of 2023 & DA2 nt 02_0a.2019 lPage 187-188 of rhe replyl B.

Facts ofthe comptalnt The conrplajnant has made the followjng su bmr ssions in thecomplaint: i.

That the Comptajnant is a law-abtding and peace toving citjzen ot IDdia.

Sheenjoys a .espectable sratus in socrety and is a,consLrmer within rhe meaningofsectjon 2(7) oftte Consumer p.otectjon Act 2019, having booked a service apa.tment wth the respondenr. ii.

That the respondenr k a prjvare Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its reg,srered otice and is 5. engaged in rhe business of reat estate devetop ment and promotion.

That on 25108/2013, the Complajnant entered into an ag.eeme. n ag.eeme.t rrh lhe respondent tor rhe purchrse or d \er\rre apar(menr, bearing No.

SA4-27,4th Floor, Towe.A in rhe prolect ,,68 Avenue, iocated at Sector 68, Curugram, Haryana. .the totaj sale consideration for rhes3id unitwas approximately Rs.

55,00,000/.

The Comptainant has already paid a substantral sum oi Rs.

41,00,000/-, wirh rhe intial payment being Rs.4,0a,160/-, rowar.is That despite repeated requests, no p.oper written agreement was everfurnished orexecuted with theComplainant,whjch is nor onlv Lnerhrcrl bLrr dt\o rcnder\ thp respondpnr (jdjms and demdnds void ab,nitio.

The project was ro be compteted wthin 36 months, Non.e ofpossessjon 06_72.2021 [Page 2 02-2 0 7 of rhe repry]l t4i HARERA GURUG]?AI\I but even after8 monrhs beyond the stipulated trme, no possessjon has been handed over.

That the Compla,nant fulfilted all her payment obligations as per the agreed plan.

However the respondenr has iailed to deliver physjcal and Iegal possession of the unir, thereby vjolating the contractualobligationsand established principles taid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Co urr rega.d ing tjmely detivery by builders.

That the respondent has engaged in fraudulent conduct by issuing documenrs unde. cusromer code 000161 dated 0i.06.2013 and another dated 20.12.2073 tor rhe same pu.pose, creatjng ambiguity and maniputation ofdates to mistead the Complainanr. l hatdesprte severatartempts by the Comp ta inant ro reacrr out and seek clar,fication and redr€ssal, the respondent has deljberarely avoided all communicarion and tailed to resolve the matter.

That an FIR No.

151/2020 was regisrered against the respondent fo r cri minal offenses u nd et Sections 406, 420, 467 , 468, 47 I tpc, which shows the decepHve intenr and habiruat conduct of the respondent in detrauding consum€rs.

Atthough the FIR was quashed, theunderlying altegationswere serious and supported by That there is gross i.consistency jn the pncjng docume.ts provided by the respondent: Statement of Account: p\s. ount: p\s.

46,344S3/- Later Claimed: Rs.

51,75,771l- Allothent LeBer: Rs.

4472,137l- Builder Buyer Agreement (BBA)| Fs,.4472,t37 /- IU6UU F;;*";,ilr,,r_Eno,- These inconsistent and arbitrary figures show clear manipulation and intent to defraud.

Tha he BBA produced by ihe respoodent is forged and manipulated as the Complainanr neyer signed as,Leela Sharma." Her omcial and consisrenr signature is ,L€etavad, as per all relevant idenriry documents and merho ofparties.

That the Comptainant has suffered immense mental a8ony, financial stresr and harassmenr due to the fraudulent and negligentacts of the respondent and hasbeen deprived of both her hard-earned money and prornis€d possession oi the dwe in8 uniL GU {} d5 HARER C.

R€liefsought by rhe complatnant: 6.

The conrplainant has soughtfolowing relierG].

9.

7_ i.

Dir€d the Respondenr for an immedtate refund oithe amount ot Rs.41,00,000/- alongwirh jnrerest thereon at the rare of 18% trom the due date ofpayrnents till rhe date of actual paymenr in favour ofComplainants and against the Respondent.

The complainant in complainr no.

1282 ot 2024 has sought ao owing i.

Drrecrrhe respondentrotaketheDossessn . on and pryourstandrng ir.

AjtFrndtivety, rhe.comptajnanr/allonee seek\ lhe nghr io cdn(et ,rp a orment ot the respondent dtong wIh torrerlu;e or earnesr ,nonev. oerayed Interesr and brokerape. on rhp ddte oi heanng rhe duth"orrry exptdrned ro rhe respo nden t/prom oter abour thecontraventions asa eged to have been committed in retatjon to sedion t1(41 [a) oithe act to plead guilry o.

R€ply by th€ respondent The respondent has contested the complajnt on the toltownrg ground s.

D, trHARERA #-eunuemr.,r The Respondent Company submits that rhe present complaint is nor majntainable as the Comptainant has nor approached this Autho.ity with clean hands and has wiIfLruy supp.essed material facts, inctudingpriortitigation andproceedjngs diredly.etevantto the subjed matter. ed matter.

The Compla,nant has initiated muhipte frjvotous and para et proceedings to arln twst the Respondent and unjustly enrich herself despite berns in defautt of her co.rractual obligations. ii The Complainant, atrer reviewi.g the Respondenrs commer.i^r project '68 Avenue, in Secror 68, Cu.ugram, appljed for the allorment oi a service apartment and submirted rhe Application Form volunrarity, having iulty read and unde.stood the re.ms and condirions.

An alotment letter dated 30.07.2012 was issued for Apa.tmenrNo.

SA4-27,4th Ftoor, TowerA, for a total consideration ot Rs.

44,72,137/- (ptus appticable ta,\es and charges).

The Complainant opted for a Conskuction t,nked payment plan. iii The Space Buyets Agreement was duly execured on 25.08.2013. and the Complainanrwas nevercoerced or misted.

Theagreement clearly stipulares rhar possession sha be delivered within 36 months from execution, subjed to a further grace penod oi 3 months and force majeure ctauses.

Therefore, the due date .f possession was 25.11.2016, and the same was delayed due to reasons beyond the Respondent,s conrrol, includiDg r€gulatory delays and lack otinfrastrucrure by HUDA.

Despite several demand and .eminder letters rssued by the Respondent on 01.05.2012, 01.1A.2O|Z, t6_OB.2DtZ, 15.09.2072, 1 9 _70.20 12, as.o t.20 t3, o 6.05.20 1 3, 24 _08.2073, 25.t,\.2013.

04.01.2014, 01.03.2014, 10.05.2014, 31.10.2014, an d 0L06.2017.

I ConplainrNo.

5364ot2023& u HARERA GURUGRAIV the Complainanr persisrently failed to .1"". out t"nding which led to delay in c\ecution and orher consequ€mes. dues, The present comptaint is a resutt oi her own conrractuaj defaulr and hence not maint3inabte under Iaw The Respondenr exercised due djtigence ro obratn the Occuparion Certiticate, which wasdeiayed due to infrast.uctu.al ljmjtatjons on wate. supply in Sector 69. lt is onty upon exrensrve efforts, including tayjng ot pipelines (permission dared 21.09.20181 and dr rdnging wdrer tnrough alrernrre \ourcps. e \ourcps. rhar OC, wereSranted .

1s.01.2019 ior Cround to 2nd Floor (Block A) .

02.08.2019 fo.

Tower A,3rd to 12th Floors and Tower B Cround to 5rh Floor These delays were notdueto the Respondenfs fault but were covered underforce majeure conditrons.

The Comptainant has fjled muldpte jitigations, all oiwhjch either stand dismissed orMthdrawn, ctearly showing an rntent to harass .

Consumer Comptaint No.

CCl189/2020 bero.e Districr Consumer Fo.um, SW Delhi .

Criminal Complajnt No.8521/2020 (dismissed on 07 .04.2022), Crx,inat Revjsion N o.

307l202 3 [d ismissed] .

CivilSuit No.

3381/2021 (withdrawnl .

RERA Compiaint No.

RERA-CRC,5364-2023 The Complainanr has paid Rs.38,61,543/-, but signiiicant dues renrain unpaid alongwith appticabte interestand charges.An ofie. oa possession terter dated 06.12.2021 was rssued, but the vi. vii G pi * $_ vjii. xi.

10.

C.

HARERA URUGMI/ Complainant has refu relused to trke porre\sion ot lhc compjered unrt The Complainanr booked the unit as a specutative investmenr for commercialgains and is therefore notentirled ro protection under the Consumer protection Acr.

This v,ew has been supponed by numerou5 tudrciajprecpdents. hotd rng specu tar,ve rnvestors not to be gen u ine consumers E.

TheComplainanthassu suppressed p.iorltigationhistoryincluding sed complainrs.As per the Hon,ble Supreme Cou( s rulings: .

Xusha Duruka v.

State ofOdisha [2024 rNSC 46] . x.D.

Sha.ma v.

SArL (2008) lz SCC 48tl It is sertled taw rhat suppression of materjal facB js tantamount ro fraud on the court, and such a litjgant is nor enritled ro any reljef.

The Respondent has performed all obtigarions rn good ta,th and has made sincere efforts to obrain OC and offerpossessjon.

It is rhe Complainant who is in defautr, and the Respondent has not indulged in any unfair trade practice ordeticiency rn servjce. n servjce.

That the Complajnant is nor a genuine consumer and end user since she had booked rhe said unit in qu€stron purejy for commercialpurpose as a specutative investor and to make profits and gains. es ol all the retevant documents have been filed and ptaced on record.

Th eir aurh ent,city is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on the basis of these undispured documents and submission ,urisdiction of rh€ authority: F-r"in,r*r"*r*rze;r-a sed to cornply wirh fioancial obligahons, and HARERA 11.

The authority has territorial as welt as subject .";;;;;; adiudicate the present complainr for the reasonsgiven betow.

E.I Territoriatiurisdtction 12 As per norification no. r/92/20r7-rTcp dated 14.12.2017 issued by TowD and Country plann,ng Department, the jurisdiction oiReat Estate Regularory Authoriry, Curugram sha be entire Gurugram Disrrict for all purpose with offices sjtuated in Gurugram. rn rhe present case, rhe projecr in question is siruaied vrtthin rhe planning area of Curugram district.

Therefore, rhis authorityhascomptete te.ritorial tu.isdiction to dealwith the p.esent comptaint.

E.ll Sub,ect matter lurtsdtcrion 13.

Section t1(,11(a) otthe Ac!

2016 provides that rhe promoter shall b. responsible to the ailortee as per agreemert for sale.

Section 11(41(al is reproduced as hereunder: se.tion 1lq)(a) Bct^po^tblplo, otrbltgoro4\.e\pol\ihr e:o4tjtLn. tton,Lndet .,::.:.,::.::.:, ", tni5 4ct o, the ,ut\ _nd ,"eut .a^ n;de ,:::: i :,!.:.,-o:,t :,,1 h.: u tb, k: : u. pe,, he a! peh e ! a, . vtp i t o t 4c ", u, u, tu u db,tt t ^ th? . a@ 4or b" ti , i. ; o4 pran, e at ai ". ^,,,". o*,*0".,oit",t.r , ".tr" "r"ltoru^ - he ;^p;;;; ourhann os rhe.o\p nnv h.

Su,ion Sr-runnion" oJ ,t . lurao,,ry, 4(tt ot t\p Att odtdc. to pr,u,p.onpl_oa.? or rae vbt,!ot,an\.un Lton .h. ptanotq\ tnc ot,dtpa oa; ,h. telt a.o,, A*" ";;", thr A. t aad t he, Lle. oao t "oLlotna. aodp t he, euntlpt 14. untlpt 14.

So, in view ofthe provisions of th€ Act quored above, the authoriry has complete jurisdiction to decide the complainr regarding non_ complian.e ofobligations by rhe promote.l€avrng aside compensation I}HARERI. ($- Gunuennv to be decided by the adiudicaring offfcer if pursued by th€ complainants at a Iarer stage.

1s.

Further, the Authority has no hitch in proceeding with the complaint and ro grant a reliet ot refund in rhe presenr matter jn view of the judgement passed by rhe Hon,bte Apex Court in Newtech promoters a d Devetopers privdte Limited Vs State ofU.p. and Ors. (Supra) and rciterated in case ol M/s Sana Reoltors private Limtted & other Vs Union ol tndia & others slp [Civil) No.

13005 or 2020 decided on 12.05.2022wherein it has been lald down as under: aD,uaa tN,,,rene at the Act ofwhtLh o d,att"o,et"req,e \o. been ,,^q^u,,u|t ,ortrg rcte ot po*e, aI odiud-otor del.n"a@d a1h the r,,^utoa./ otnor. hJ adao,.*.s ",u,. "tn t,*,4 ."" *i ,, ...:. .._.,.*7! i," ^: .rd_o,e. tne dt\t.n L 4pre..,h .4e ,etu4o n.oron_ato oht +odtrp.J54 on.

Ib q. u t - leo1l 4ont,.,, t hat w\pr, d_ t o t abhr ot I h" onarat oatl t4',t.!

04 th. r4LrJ aiodnt. at drc.tng farne at n@,c o, ,tl!::.1! d"^"? o,r^p.qn , p"*t1 ""; ;";:.::;;h;:,.;;..,: ,:,;i; th" oawd @p^ohtr" _nd d, t"rrnp the oLr- -ut o.rnrtJ nt A_th" _,,_,"r""":;,;;::, y-kno,c,.\e1 at adtudgtns.o.pr.,ot,o, ""o,",",._,,n","",,.a., Dan_ toJctqna4 tepry in,i"" ,t" -tr", iin , _."s o1 !.,t,,.:i r, ad wtth te. tion, ot the Art,t.hpadiudhonon L"d?rip,trc4. t - t; ,-1::: t." oth:. thot -o4ppn\ation o\ e4ti-os.d. .1 _.*"a ,i ii" u u t _u o.t4 t,g o i ?.o,\ ptdr ed tao t_, n o \ t c4, na! t at e d r o c qand t he un,q ono " op" ot th? powpt, !nd tun,uaa, ot the odttt- au;o "lt@; underse.tion71ahtl thotwauld be ogoinst the nah.lo te al the Act2016.,, 16.

016.,, 16.

Hence, in view oi the aurhoritarive pronouncemenr oi the Hon,ble Supreme Courr in rhe cases mentjoned above, rhe Aurhority has the iurisdictjon to entertain a complaint seeking refund oirhe amounr an.l inreresron the refund amounr.

F.

Finding on obiections raised byrhe respond€nt. *HARER" *- 3,,..1Gr:v .,^*il;.-qs,,,o.", ,- t.I Obj€crton regarding comptainanr being investor. r, lhe ,e.pondent lLbmirled rhdt rhe,omptdjndnr i\ rnvestor dnd nor consumer/allottee, thus, the complainant is nor entitled to the protedion ot rhe Act and thus, the present complaint is not 18.

The authoriry observes that theAct is enacted to protectthe interestot consume.s of rhe real estate sector.

It is perrinenr to note that unde. section 31 of the Act, any aggrjeved person can file a co mplaint aga,nst the promorer itthe p romoter contrav€nes o. violares any provisioDs of the Act o. rutes or .egujations made thereunder.

Upon carefut perusal of all the terms and conditions ofthe buyer,s agreement, t is reveated that the complainanris an altottee/buyer and he has pa id total price of Rs.

41,00,000/-to the promoter towards purchase otthe said unjt in the p.oject oithe promoter.

At this stage, it is imporrant to stress upon rhe definition ofterm allottee under rhe Acr, the same rs reproduced below for ready referencel ?tJ) or,atba n etoton ta o rpot "sto@ ptate.t n"on. tne pcr.aa b nhaa " otot apdrdqt ot butldtao or thc rc.e na, b? hd_ bcer atu|"d ,old trhetad o\ hephotd a. ha,ehod; o, onedf tton\fdred b, the pronoter, ond aauae, tne p*w ii" subequenit ocqlirT the said oltotnent throush ete, tonsk. or 1:!:y",.tu'. d::: not nctude o pe6on to wton suci ptot. upo a"nt o. bLttdro a\, h". o.e qo r be. ^ g^ ea on.ent e ln vie$ oiabo\p-menrroned detrnrlron or.a ottee, as welt a\ dti the terms and condirions of the buyer,s agreement executed betw€en .espondent and complainants, it is crystat clear thar rhe comptainants are allottees as the subiect unit was a otred ro them by the promoter. promoter.

Tbe concepr ofinvestor is notdefined or.eferred in theAct.

As per the *HARERA (s- eunuenrur definitiongiven undersecrion 2 oitheAct, there will be ,,promoter" and ''allotree" and there cannot be a party having a sratus ot,,investor,, The Maharashrra Real Estate Appelate Tribunal in its order dated 29.01.2019 in appeat no.

0006000000010557 titled as M/s Srushai Sa gam Devetopers pvl LU. vs.

Sarvaprtra Leastng (p) Lts.

And otu. has also held rhat the concept of investor is not detined or refe.red in the Act.

Thus, rhe contention of promote. that the comptainants- alloftees bejng invesrors are not entitled to p.otectjon ofthis Acr stands C [indings on rhe relefsought by the complainanL 20.

The loren)ost quesrion thatarises before thrsAuthoriry is as to wherher theallotree is enrtrted for refund oftheamounrpajd alongwith inte.est or the complajnanrbedirected to take the possession ofrheallotred unit atterclearing the outstandingdues along with interest.

21.

In the present matter v,de clause 3t of the BBA, rhe promoter has proposed ro handover the possession ofthe subject apartment unit a period of36 rnonths oisjgning ofthis Agreement or within 36 monrhs from the date of srart ol construction of the said Brijlding wh,chever later with a grace period of 3 months.

Theretore, the due date is 2s 11.2016 calculared arom the dare ot 36 months ot sjgning of this Agrecment with a grace period of 3 month as date of start ot construcrion ofthe said Buitding is not on record.

22.

The co m plainant/altottee fi1ed a co mpjajnt beiore the autho.iry beanns no. cR/5364/2023 on 14.12.2023 and the.eaft.r respondent also nted a comptaint bearing no.

18.04.2024. lt is necessary to menrion here thar b CR/1282/2024 on ffHARERA 9[ eunuennv were retated to rhe same apanmenr ano n"r.", ooi- lio]j togetherin order to avoid conflicring orders.

23.

The complajnant was a oned unir no.

SA_4 27, 4d floor, tower-A 587.280 sq. it. in rhe project,,VSR 6g, Aver by the respondent/buijde. r". uijde. r"." ",," rr,.:::;::-;r:::"::t; hd\ pard r sLrm o, R( 41.00.000/ whrch r\ appror cto! or the vle consideration.

A buyer,s agreement dated 2S.08.2013 was executed between parrjes wirh rega.d to the allotted unit and the due date for compjetion of rhe projecr and offer of possession was on 25.11.2016 Th€ respondent obtained the OC fiom the concerned authorirv on 0l08.z0to and 5ubsequenrly otrered rhe possession ot th€ unit vide letter dated 06.12.2021, the complainanr was requested to clear ontsranding dues and ro take the possession.

Tn€ compiainant failed ro p.ry rhe outstanding amount due agajnsr the allotted unit.

24.

The respondenr jssued many reminders dated 10.0S.2014 and 31.10.2014 rhereafter issued ffnal demand on 01.06.2017.

The 0ccupation Ceftificareforrheprojectof thealtoned unjtwasgranted on 02.08.2019.

After receiprof0C the respondent otttred the possession to the conrplainant on 06.12.2021.Iris evidenr from the above mentions lacts rhat the compjainant paid a sum of Rs.

4r,00,000/ against sale consideratron ot Rs.

44,72,137/_ of the unir altorted ro her on 30.07.2012.

The complarnant has failed to adhere to the terms an.l conditions otthe buijder buyer agreement.

I conptainrNo sto+ orzozt at;r,riii-l ffHARERA $-eup,Golv .q]il;;s*".,,0,,&,,8t"r,;.

2s.

However, rhe deducrion. or "".,"", ,non", .il lilllffi with the appticable laws and as per rhe taw otthe tand laid down by rhe Hon'bteapexcourrof theland in cases of,t oulorux ts. union oI tidio, (1970) 1 SCR gz| and Sirdar K.B.

Ram chandra Raj Urs. vS.Sorah C.

Urs., (2015) 4 ScC 136, a.d wherein ir was held rh at fo*tture ol the amounr in case ofbreach ofcontract must be reosondbte ond iflorleitLre is in the ndture af penatqr, then pravisions ofsection 74 of Contact AcL 1872 are dttuched and the portJ so forleiti ng nusr prove octuotdanoges.

AJier cance ution afa otment, the fiat renains wth the buitder as such there is hordly any actuot danage. ot danage.

National Consumer Dispures RedressalConrmissjons in CC/435/2019 Ranesh Mathotra vS.

Emda.

MGF Land Ltmtted (decided o\ 29.06.2020) and Mr.

Saurav Sanyat VS.

M/s IREO prtvate Limlted (decided on 72.04.2022) and to owed in CC/2756/2017 in case titted as layont Slnghal onct Anr. yS.

M3M hdia Limited decided on 2G.07.2022, held that 10a/o oJ basic sale price is reosonabte amount b be forfelted in the none of .earnest monev,,_ Keeprng rn vr"w rhe pfln..ptps tard oown rn tf," r,rr, ,*o .",*,. , regulation known as rhe Harya.a Reat Estate Segujatory Aurhor,ty Gurug.am (Forfeiture of earnesr noney by rhe build€rl Resutatjons 11[5) of2018, was farmed providing as under: "5.AMOUNTOF IRNESTMONEY Scehorio prior to fie Reol Estate (Regutations ond Developnqt) 4ct,2016 was dillerent F.oudswere carned outwthaut anv ftur o: t\ere a\ ao low ta, tne \o." *, **. . ,r., ,*,0_, Iacts ond takjhs into conside.otion the judgenents al Hon,bje *4 HARERA GURUGRAII4 Notional Contuht Dhputq Redtesl Condission ond the Hon'ble Suprehe Court oI tndio, the outhoil is ol the vte|' thdt the lorkitue onount of the eohest none, shalt @t aca., noret an 10% ol the @nsideuttol omonnt oI th. r.ot 6toae l.e. aponm.nt /plot /buiktiw I the coy moy be ih ot cqs.s where the can@ltation ofthe lat/unit/ptot is nade b, the buildet tn o unilatenl nanner ot the bulet inandstowithdtow lion the prcject ond ont ogretuht contoihing any ctoue @niory to the oloretuid regulations thalt be voi(l ond hot btndins on the buyet." 26.

Keeping rn view the aforesatd factual and legal provisions, the respondents/p.omoter is djrected ro refund rhe paid-up amount oa Rs.

41,00,000/- afrer deducting 10yo of the sale considerario. oi Rs.

44,72,137 / bein1 earnest money along with an interesr @11.100/o p.a. (the Srate Bank of India highesr marginat cost oi lending rate (MCLRJ applicable as on date +2Eo) as p.

2Eo) as p.€scribe d under rule 1S ofthe Haryana Real tistate (Regutation and Development) Rules, 2017 on the refundabte amount, ftom the date offfting ofcompta int i_e.,14.t2.2023 till actual refu nd ofthe amou.t wjthin the timelines provjded in .ute 16 ofthe Haryana Rutes 2017 ibtd.

H.

Dlr€ctions ofrhe authority 27.

Hence, rhe aurhoriry hereby passes rhis order and issues rhe fo owing directions under section 37 of the Act ro ensu.e compliance ot obligations cast upon the p.omoteras pe. the funcrion entrusted to the authoriry under sect,on 34(t; The respondents/promoter is directed to refund the paid-up amount of Rs. a1,00,000/- after deducting 10% ofthe sale consideratioo of Rs- 44,72,137 / - beiry eanest money along with an ,nterest @ 1 1.10% ffHARERA s- Gunuennrl p.a. (the Srate Bank of India highesr marginat cost ot tending rate (MCLR) applicable as on dare +2olo] as prescribed under rute 1S ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Developmentl Rules,2017 on the refundable amounr from the date of fiUng or compta,nt i.e., 14.12.2023 til its realizarion. ji.

A period of 90 days is gjven to the .espondent ro comply with the directions given in this order and failing which tegal consequences would fottow.

The Complaints stands dis be placed on the case f,le ol 29.

File be consigned to Dated:04 04.2025 e certified copies olthrs order a RealEstate GURUGRAM T]TI lQ"r Xumar rman) IatoryAuthoriry, Gurugram I ;;hi,,N,"€ilror& 1druor-