VSR INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED vs MUKUL SHARMA

* di) HARERA GURUGRA]V BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM 04,04.2025 PROIECTttAME l r4 Avenue, Secror-l14, cuol,.am I pRolEcrNAME ] rr+,rr".r", s"ao" rrl, c-u-g,.n. - _] "l! case No. c.,.,,tr" - f- epp.**" _ l Case No.

Casetifle Appe.rance ' H \_-8 2u,rJ Vukr tslrrnd Aov. qsnwr'nr Kumdr V5. shrrmc v<R tnfrat*h Priv.le Lrm pd ' tconohjn/ l 3 ah,'Jn Swar.& krn ("1.r \d\ \1r.y"tJ1k"r,.o imflr.S vd{dvd (R".ponoen!, 2 cR/74)A/2024 lntrarech Privat. l,Lmrred I CORAM: ORDER 1.

The order shall dispose off both the complaints rtled as above fited beto.e this authority under section 3t of the Real Esrare (Regutation and Developmenr) Acr 2016 (hereinafter .eferred as "th€ Acr,,l read with rule 28 ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regutation and Devetopmenrl Rules, 2017 [he.einafter reierred as "the rules,,] for violation ofsection 11(4)tal oithe A€rwherein ir is inreralia prescr,bed that the promorer shallberesponsiblelorallitsobligat,ons,respons,bilitiesandfunctions to the allottee as per the ag.eement for sale executed inter se berlveen Complaint No.5778 oI2023 & 1438of2024 HARERA GURUGRA[4 Complar0t No.5778 ot 2023 & 1438 of2024 2 l.

The core issues emanating from them are similar in nature and the complainant(sl in the above referred rnatters are allo$ee of the projects, namely, 114 Avenu., Secto.114, Gurugram be,ng developed by thesame respondent' promoter i.e.

VSR Infratech Private Limited.

Theaioresaidcomplaintsw€recounterfiledbythepartiesagainsteach other on account of the buyer's agreement executed between the parties in respect otthe said unit.

The aacts ofboth the complaints filed by the complainants are s,milar.

Out ofthe above- menrion€d €ase, the prrri, ulrrs or tpad ca-e CR/577A/2023 titled as Mukul sharma vs.

VSR Infratech Private Limited are being taken into consideration for determining th. rights oithe parties.

Unit and proiect related details Both the cases relate to one allotted unit. tted unit.

On€ among these is filed by the allottee and theother one is nled by th€ builder, so fardeciding both the cases, the facts ol first .ases are being taken.

But beibre that the particul:rs of unit details, sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainant, d:te of proposed handing over the possession, delay period, ifany, have been detailed in the following tabular fornr: 4.

S, N, 1. "114 Averuc , SELtur 114, Gurupram 2 .1.

License no. and validity | 72 of 2011 dated 21.07.2011 valid upto 20.o?.2024 AMD Estateand DeveloDers Pv,t Lrd l HARER,I u GURUGRAA/ complarnr No.5778 oi202t & 1438 of2024 RERA Registered/ not s3 of zorsi tea-4.092019 upto31.12.2020 lPage 32 ofcomplaintl Unn area admeasuring 784.700 sq. h. lPage 32 ofcomplaintl 't9.o7.20t! lPase 32 ofcomplaintl 04.02.20t2 lpas€ 65 ofconplaintl 10 DateoiASreement forSale 0s.012022 fPaee 28 29 or conrDlaint 11.

7.1 Sche.lule lor possession of the soid untt lor Commerciol usoge The Promatetogrces onrl un.le^tonds that ttnely.leliveay of posssion ol the Un for Cohmercrol usoge olons ||th parkh! lil appl@ble) to the Attatteeb) and the to the o$aciution al allattees or the cohpetent outhariry withln o perto.l ol 50 months \|ith o.ldinonol sroce ol 5 months lron the dok ol qeutlon ol this agreement slbten b such extenson as ha! ha peml$ed b!

Horyana Real Estate Regulatary AuthorirJ, as the cose tuo! be, $ the esence af the JPase 40 ofmmnla,ntl 12 Due date ofDossessi.n Amount paid by 05.05.2027 lcalculated from the date of execution of asreement with srace Deriod of5 monthsl 't4 Rs.49,02,806/- lPase 33 ofcomplaintl Rs.25,00,000/- las alleged by complainaot at paSe 21 of ltH S-c B, iii ARERA I,]RI]GRANl Legal Notice for Possession Reminder/Demand letter jssued by the repondent t7 02 2021 06.12.2021 Pape97-101olrhp..m 23.06.2015 20.t2.2073, t4_05,20t6, 24_O2.2Q!6, 3\.05.20t?,06.07 _2077.

29.t0.

77.

29.t0.2020 lpaAe 71-73 of complaint Facts ofthe complaint The complainanthas madethe fottowing submissions in rhe complaintl That the Complainant is a law-abidingand peace,toving citizen oa India.

She en,oys a respectable status in society and i within the meaning ol Section 2(7J otthe Consumer p.otection Act, 2019, having booked a service apa rrment with rhe respondenr.

That the respondent ,s a Private Limited Company rncorporated under the Companies Acr, having irs registered offlce and is engaged jn the business ofreal estate development and promorion.

Thar on 25/17/2011,the Comptainant enrered into an agreement with the .espondent for the purchase ot a service apartment, bearing No.74-07,7th Floor, Tower-A in the project 1t4Avenue, located at Secto.

114, Curugram, Haryana.

The toral sale consideration fo. rhe said unitwas approximately Rs.55,00,000/-.

The Complainant has already paid a substanriat sum of Rs.

2 5,00,000/-, with the inrtial payme nt being Rs.

9,80,S 6 t /-, roward s th. said apartment.

That despite repeated requests, no proper written agreementwas everiurnished orexecutedwith the Comptainant, wh rch isnotonly Complaint No.5778 of2023 & l2 15.

L6 ComDlajnt No.5778 o12023 & 1433 or202a HARERA I]GRA[/ GUR unethical but also renders the respondenr claims and demands void ab initio.

The proiectwasto be completedwithin 60 months, but tilldate, no possession has been handed over.

That thc Complainant tuttilled aI her payment obligations as per the agreed plan.

However, the respondent has tailed to detive. physical and legal possession of the unit, thereby violaring the con tractual obligations and established principles ta,d down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding timelydelivery by burlders.

Th at d espjte several atrempts by the complainantto reach out and seek cl.r.ification and redressal, the respondent has deliberatety avoided allcommunication and failed ro resolve the matter.

That an FIR No. an FIR No.

151/2020 was registered against the respondenr for c.iminal offenses under Secrions 406,420, 467, 468, 471 rpC, which shows the deceptive intent and habitual conduct of the respondent in defrauding consumers.

Although the FIR was quashed, the underlying allegationswerese.ious and supported by That it is pertinenr to mention thar the Respondent has witlfuly engaged in deceptive and fraudulenr conduct with rhe inrent to misl.ad and cheat rhe Complainant.

As per the Allotment Letter issued by the Respondent, it is apparent that an amounrexceeding 10yo ol the total sale consideration, i.e., Rs.

7,00,000/-, was collected as a registration amounr, in conrravenrion ofestabt,shed vii norms and legal safeguards afiorded ro consumers.

More shockingly, within the same allotment letter, the Respondent ha! quoted muhiple and contradictory figures in relation to the total sal€ consideration-initially quoring Rs.

6,52,7r,615/- thereafter lrHARERA S- eunrc,nnr,r tompldint No.5778 ot 2021& 1438 of2024 specilying the unit value as Rs.

52,71,615/, and subsequ€ntly, in other documents, represent,ng the unit price as Rs.

57,14,971l-.

These conflicting and inconsisrenr figures are nor mere clerical errors but constitute a calculated attempt by the Respondenr to confuse, misrepresent, and convolure the financial terrns of the transaction, therebyprejudicingthelegal rightsoitheComptainant and amounting to unfair trade p.actice under Section 2(1)trloithe Consumer Protection Act,2019.

Further, the Statemenr ofAccount dated 21.03.2023 refle€ts an arbitrary and baseless outstanding amount or Rs.

1,02,51,803/-, which appears to be inflared and unsupported by any credjble or itemized calculation.

This refl€crs the Respondent's pattern of raising frivolous and exaggerated demands with the sole obiective of extracting unjust enrichment drd evddrng rts st,tJror v and , onU rcrudl oblgduon, These rnconsistent and arbitrary figures show clear manipulation and intentto deiiaud. o deiiaud.Thatthe BBAproduced bythe respondent is forged and manipulated as theComplainant never signed as "Leela Sharma." Her official and consistent signature is Mukul Sharma' as per a ll relevant identity documents and memo of parties.

That the Complainant has suffered immense mental agony, financial stress, and harassment due to the fraudulent and negl,gent acts of the respondent and has been depr,ved of borh he. hard-earned money and promised possession ofthe dwelling unit. c.

6.

Relietsought by the complalnartl The complainant has sought following relierG).

Direct the Responde Rs.

2 5,00,000/- alons nt for an immediate refund ofthe amount of with interestthereon atthe rate of 18% fron *H *e 7 9.

ARERA 8 D, URUGRAIV the due date of payments rill the date ofactual payment in favour oiComplainants and against the Respondent.

The complainant in complaint no.

1438 of 2024 has sought foltowing i.

Directthe respondent to take the possession and pay outstanding ii.

Alternatively, the complainant/alloftee seeks the .ight to cancel the allotment oarhe respondenr atong wth iorfeiture ofearnest money, delayed interesr and brokeraBe.

On the date oi hearin& rhe authority explained ro rhe .es pondent/p romoter abou t the contraventions as alleged to have been committed in relation to sectlon 11(4) (a) of the act to ptead guitry or not to plead guilty.

Reply by the respondent The.espondent has contesred th e complaint on the foltowing gro unds.

The Respondent Compaoy submits that the present complaint is not maintainable as the Complaimnt has not app.oached this Authority with clean hands and has willfully suppressed marerial facts, including p rio r litiCation and p.oceedi ngs d irecrly relevant to the subject matter.

The Complaioant has initiated muttiple trivolous and parallel proceedings to arm-twist the Respondenr and unjustly e.rich herself despite being in defauk ol her contractual obl,gat,ons. l,gat,ons.

The Complainant, after reviewjng the Respondent s commercial project "114 Avenue in Sector 114, Gurugram, applied ior rhe allotment ol a servrce apartment and submftred the Application Fornr voluntarily, having lully read and understood the terms and conditions.

An allotment letter dated 08.02.2012 was issued for Apartment No.74-07,7th Floor, TowerA, aora total considerarion aomplaint No.5770 of202l & latS or 2024 HARERA GURUGRAIU ol Rs.

52,71,615 /- [plus applicable raxes and charges).

The Co m plainant opted for a Construction Linked payment p1an. iii.

The Space Buyer's Agreemenr was duly execured on 05.01.2022, and the Complainant was never coerced or misted.

The agreemenr clearly stipulares thar possession sha be delivered within 60 months from execution, subject ro a further grace period oi 5 months and force majeure clauses.

Therefore, the due date oi possession was 05_06_202?, and the same was delayed due to reasons beyond the Respondent,s control, including regutatory delays and lack oiinfrastructure by HUDA. iv.

Despite several demand and reminder letters issued by the Respondenr on 26_03.2072,17.04.2012, 05.a7 .zo t2, 06_0a.2072, 0 t.0 1.20 13, 72.02.2013, 20.t2.20 13, 70.05.20 1 ?, 3 7.05 _20 17.

06.47 2017 the Complainant persistently failed ro clear outstanding dues, which led ro delay in execution and other consequenc€s.

The present complaint is a resutt of her own contractual default and bence not mairtainable under law. v.

The Respondent exercised due diligence to obtain rh€ Occupation Certificate, which was delayed du e ro in hastru ctu ral timitations on water supply in Sector 114.

It is only upon extensive efforts, including layjng of pipelines (permiss,on dated 21.09.20181 These delays were not due ro the Respondentt fauh but were covered under rorce majeure conditions. vi. lhe Complainant has filed multiple lirigarions, atl of which either stand dismissed or withdrawn, clearly showingan intentto harass .

Consumer Complaint No. plaint No.

CCl186/2020 before Distric!

Consumer tiorum, sW Delhi I complaintNo.5778ot2023&1438of202. l ffHARERA S- ounuennu Complarnr No.5778 or 2(,ll & t4l8 ot20l4 .

C.iminal Complaint No.

8522/2020 [dismissed on 07 _04_2022), . civilsuirNo.3380/2021(withdrawnl .

RERA Cornplaint No.

RERA-CRG-5778-2023 The Complainant has paid Rs.

25,00,000/-, but significant dues remain unpaid alongwith applicable interest and charges.

An offer ol possession letter dared 06.12.2021 was ,ssued, but rhe Complainant has refused to complywith financial obligarions, and reiL\ed ro rdkp pos,e.:ron of the, omplered unrt.

The Complainant booked the unit as a speculative investment lor commercialga,ns and is therefore notentitled to protedion under the Consumer Protectlon Act.

This view has been supported by nu merous judicial precedents, holding speculative investo rs not to be genuine consumers.

The Co mplainant has su ppressed priorlitigation history, including dismissed complaints.As perthe Hon'ble Supreme Court's rulings: , Kusha DurLrka v. state ofodisha [2024 INsc a6] .

K.D.

Sharma v.

SAIL l[2008) 12 SCC 481] It is settled law that suppression of material iacts is tantamount to fraud on the court, and such a litigant is not entitled to any relief.

The Respondent has perlormed all obligations in good faith and has made sincereeff,orts to obtain OC and offerpossession.ltis the Complainant who is in default, and the Respondent has not .ndulged n dny un ldr- lrdde pracure or de|ciency rn servke.

That the Complainant is not a genuine consumer and end user since she had booked the said unit in question purely fo.

I}HARERA S-eunucmur Complaint No 577a oi2023 & 1438 o12024 commercial purpose as a specutative investor and to make profits 10 Copies olall the relevant documenrs have been nled and placed on record.

Thejr a uth ent,ciry is notin dispute.

Hence, the complainr can be decided on the basis ot rhese undisputed documents and submiss,on made by the part,es.

E. art,es.

E. lurisdictton ofrh€ authorlty: 11.

The authority has rerrirorialas well as subject matter ju.isdiction to adjudicate rhe present comptaintforthe reasons given below.

E.

I Territori.l iu.isdlctior 12.

As pe. notification no. t/92/2017-1TCp dared 14.12.2017 issued by Town and Country Planning Departmen! theiurisdiction ofRealEstate Regulatory Authority, Curugram shatl be entire Gurugram Dist.ict for allpurpose wirh offices situared in Cu.ugram. ln the pr€sent case, the protect in queshon is siruated within the ptanninC area of Curugram district.

Theretore, this authorityhascomplete rerrirorial iu risdiction to dealwith the present complaint.

E.ll SubjectmatteriurisdictioD 13.

Secnon 11(41[a] of rhe Act, 2016 provides that the promoter sha be responsible to rhe allottee as per agreement ior sate. sectjon 11(4ltal is reproduced as hereunder: Be te\pontib|e tot oI1 obttgorioas., e:ponybtties and func ont uldet th? ptuaons oJ thit Act ot the tuta ond resulouons nade theleundet or to th. olbttees as pet the og@nent ht sle, or to the oeciotion oI allotteet as the case noy be, till the convetane oI ol rhe oponnents, plots ot buildingt os the uy hat be, to the oltotiat ISHARERA $*eunucnnv Complaint No 5778 of2023 & 1438 ofzo24 or the cannoh arco5 to the associotian al ollo&ees or the conpetent outhorit!, os the cose noy be) Se.tion 34-Fun.tions oI the Authority: 310) olthe A.t provtdes t.ensurc.ahplnnce oJ the obhsotians cai upon the ptumatcr' the allattee\ and thc reol enok ooent odpr t\' 4 t oro, he, dlp\ atu, egdtot,oat aur", h eLl,r?t 14.

So, in view oithe provisions of rhe Act quored above, the autho.iry has complete jurisdiction to decide the comptaint regarding non- compliance ofobligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by rhe adjudicating otficer rf pu.sued by rhe complainants at a later stage.

15. stage.

15.

Further, the Authority has no hitch in proceedinB wth the complainr and to grant a relief of reaund in the presenr marter jn view ot the judgement passed by th.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Newtech promoters ond Developers Prlvotc Ltnited vs State ofU.p.ondOrs. (Supra) and reiteratetl in case ol M/s Sana Realtors p vote Limited & other ys Union ol India & othets SLP (Civil) No.

13005 of 2020 decrded on 12.0s.2022wherein it has been laid down as !nder: "N.

Frcn the sh.n. ol th.

Act ol*+tich d d.tait d relerence hos ban node ond taklng note ol pow.. oJ odjudi@non detineote.t with the regulota.r oLthority ond od)udicoting afrceL vhot fnolr culls out is thot ohhough the Act indicdtes the ditri^ct expte$ions li*e ,refund, lntetee' 'opnoltt' and i onppnto oo' o nnjoint eddng ol Se.tbns rA ond 1a cteo'lt nanlett< thot whp4 n.ohe\ b tplLnd ot rhe onounr ai.! interest on the refund anount, at dnectins poyhent ol iiteftst lot delayed delivery ol po$e$ian, at penalty ahd interqt thertun, it is the regulatory outhoriy which has th. power to exohine ond detemine the outcohe of o conploihl At the sane tihe, when it cohs to o question ol s..kins the rehef ol o.ljudsihg conpensation and interat ther@n und;r Sections 12, 14, 1A ond 19, the adj!.ticotinq ofrcer erctutivett hos the powet.o d"t?mtne, k@png h v,N.he.otl?ctNe eadhg oI Secrrca ?t tpod wnh Set tnn l2 olthe h L i|he odpdrution undet Sqton,12, 11, 18 ond 19 othet thon co pensotion os envisqqed, if extetued to the odjudnonns ollcer as prqted thot, in our view not inrend to exNnd the HARERA GURUGRAIU Complarnt No.5778 of2U2J & la38 of 2024 anbtand yopeofthe pawe6 ond lunctionsafthe adjudicotns allcet undet section 71 ohd that would be asonn the nandote althe Act 2016.

16.

Hence, in view oi the authoritative pronouncement ol the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases mentioned above, the Authonty has the jurisdiction to enterta,n a complaint seeking refund ofthe amount and intereston the refund amount. nd amount. "2(d) atlottee'in relotion to o rcal enate prcject neons the person to whom a plot apattment ot bundihg, os the coe hot bz hos bun ollo ed, sold (whethet os Jieehold or leosehold) or otheNie PaAe 12 ol 17 F. tinding on obiectioos raised bythe respondent. r.l oblection regadlng complahant being investor.

17.

The ..spondent submitted that the romplainant is investor and not consumer/allottee, thus, the complainaot is not entitled to the protection of the Act and thus, the present complaint is not 18.

The authority obser.,,es that the Act is enacted to protect the interest of consumers of the real estate sector. lt is pertinent to note that under section 31 ofthe Act, anyaggrieved person can file a complaint against the p.omoter ilthe promoter contravenes or violates any provisions of ihe Act or rules or regulations made thereunder Upon careful perusal of all the terms and conditions otthe buyer's agreement, it is revealed that the complainant is an allottee/buyer and he has paid totalprice of Rs.

25,00,000/-to the promotertowards purchase ofth€ said unitln the project ofthe promoter.

At this stage, it is important to stress upon the deffnition ol term allottee under the Act, the sam€ is reproduced below r dt HARERA GURUGRA]V n'anreted br the p.onater, atu1 n.tudes the pe$on wha srhsequentl| dcquites the sad o ohent thtoLgh,ole, trcnslet or athetuise but daet nat include a peren to whon such plot opoinentor buildtng, orthe case noy be, is given on rcnti 19.

1n viewoiabove mentioned definition oa "atlotee" as we asatl the terms and conditions of the buyer's agreement executed between respondenr and complainants, it is crystal clear that the comptainants are allottees as the subject unit was allorted to them by the promoter.

The concept ofinvestor,s notdefined or referred in rheAct.

As perrhe definition g,ven under sedion 2 oftheAct, there will be ,,p romoter,, and "allottee" and there cannot beapartyhavinga status of invesror',. nvesror',.The Maharashtra Real Estate Appetlare Trjbunal in ts order dared 29.01.2019 in appeal no.

0006000000010557 titled as ntls Sflrsn., Sangam Devetopers Pvt Ltd. vs.

San)apriya Leosing (P) Lts.

And anr. has also held that the concept ofinv€stor is not defined or referred jn the Act.

Thus, the contention of promoter rhat the comptainants- allottees being investors are not entitl€d to protection ofthh Act stands G. findings on the rell€f sought by the complainant.

20.

The foremost question that arises before thlsAuthority is as to whether the allottee is entitled tor refund olthe amount paid along wirh inte.est orthe complainant be directed to takethe possession ofthe allotted unit afterclea.ing the outstanding dues along with interest.

21.

1n the pr€sent mafter vide clause 31 of the BBA, rhe promoter has proposed to handover the possession olthe subjecr apartment unit a period of 60 months of signing ol this Agreemenr.

Thereiore, rhe due cohplaint No.5778 of2023 & 1438 of2024 *HARERI S-cLrnrcnav Complarnr No.5778 of202l & 1438 oI2024 date is 05.06.2027 calculated from the date of60 months ofsigningof this Agreement with a grace period of 5 months.

22.

The complainant/allottee liled a complaint b€fore the authority bearing no.

CR/577a/2023 on 18.12.2023 and thereafter the promoteF respondent also liled a complaint bearing no.

CR/1438/2024 on 18.04.2024.

It is necessary to mention here thar both the complajnts were related to the same apartm€nt and hence, both were ctubbed together in orderto avoid conflicting orders.

23.

The complainant was allotted unlt no.74-07,7'h admeasuring 784.700 sq. fL in the project' 114 Avenue, " atSector-114, Curugram, by the respondent/builderfor a sale price of Rs.

49,02,806/- and he has paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- which is approx.

500/o of the sale conside.ation.

A buyer's agreement dated 05.01. ted 05.01.2022 was executed between parties with regard to the allorted unit and rhe due date ibr completion ol the projed and offer oi possession was on 05.06.2027.

The respondent obtained the OC from the concerned authorityon 17.02.2021 and subsequentlyofiered the possession of the unit vide letter dated 06.12.2021, the complainant was requested to clear outstanding dues and to take the possession.

The complainant failed to pay the outstanding amou nt due against the allotted unit.

24.

The respondent issued many reminders dared 24-02.2076,37.05.2077 and O6.07.201J thereafter issued Rnal demand on 29-IO-2O2O- The Occupat,on Certificate for the project oftheallotted unitwas granted on 17.02.2021.

After receipt ofOC the respondent offered the possession to the complainant on 06.12.2021.1t is evjdent lrom the above mentjons facts that the complainant paid a sum ol Rs.

25,00,000/, againsr sale consideration oi Rs.

49,02,806/- oi the unit allotted to him on 08.02.2012.

The complainant has la,led to adhere to rhe terms and conditions ofthe bu ilder buyer agreement.

25.

However, the deductions of earnest money shall be mad€ accordance with the applicable laws and as per the law ofthe land laid down by the Hon'ble apex court oithe land in cases ofntoula aux VS.

Union ol lndia, (1970) 1 ScR 928 and Sirdar KB.

Rom Chantlru RoJ U.r yS- Samt C Urs., (201s) 4 ScC 136, and wherein it was held thar lo*xure ol the amount in case olbreach of connact must be reosonable and if lorleiture js in the nature ol penalry, then provisions al sectian 74 ol Contract Act, 1872 dre ottochedand the poftJ so forleiting nust ptove actuoidanoges.

After concellation ofdllotnent, the fot renains with the builder os such there ts hordly an! acFaal danoge- National Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissioDs in CC/435/2019 Ramesh Malhotra vS.

Emaar MGF Land Llmlted ldecided on 29-06.2020) and Mr.

Saurov Sonyol vS.

M/s IREO Private Limited (dec,ded on 12.04. on 12.04.2022J and followed in CC/2 766/2 017 i, case titled as Jdyant Singhal and Anr.

VS, M3M lndio Limited decided on 26.07.2022, held thot 10% oJ basrc sote price ts reasanable omount to be forlerted in the none oI "eornest noney.

Keeping in view the principles laid down in the frrst two cases, a regulaiion known as the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authoriry I}HARERA lS eunLrennrr,l tomplarnr No 5778 of 2023 & 1438 ot 2024 HARERA Complarnr No.5778 of20Z3 & 1438 of2024 of earnesr money by the builderl Regula ons, 11(51 of2018, was iarmed providins as under: Real Estate [Resulation and Developm€nt] Ruler 2017 on th€ refundable amounr. from the drte of fihng otcompldint r.e..

18.12.2021 trll actualretund ofthe amount wrthrn the trmelnes provrded rn rul€ 16 GURUGRAM Gurugram IForfeiture "5, AMOUNTOF EARNEST MONEY kenoria ptior to the Real Endb (Regulotlons ohd Developnent) Aca 2a16easdilferent l.roudswereca ied out wnhautonyfeo. ot thete wo. no low fo. the tune but haw, ih wew of the above locts ahd tokins nto conederction the iudgenentt ol Honbk Notiohol Consuner Dsputes Redrcsol Camhission anA the Hon ble Suprene Cau.t oI Indlo, the outhoritt is ol rhe vte|| thot the loieiture onount ol the eornest nonet shott not exceed nofethanl0 olthe @nrldmtioa anount olthe reol estote i,e, apartn t /plor /bdl.ling os the case mot be in olt cay5 where the cancellotion olthe llot/unit/plot b nade b! the buttder ih a unilarerul nonner ot the bulet int dstoeithdrae lton the ptotec| antl on! oq.eetuentcontaihtng any.laue cohtary to th. oloretud requlonans sholl be void ohd not bthtlins on the buyer.

26.

Keeping jn view the aforesaid factual and legal provisions, the respondents/promoter Is directed to refund the paid-up amountofRs.

25,00,000/ alter d€ducting 100/0 of lhe sale consideration oi Rs.

49,02,806/ be,ng earnest money along with an interest @11.100,6 p.a.

100,6 p.a. (the State Eank of India highest marginal cost of lend,ng rate IMCLR] applicable as on date +20101 as prescribe d under rule 15 olthe Haryana of the Haryana Rules 2017 ibid.

H.

Dir€ctions ofthe authorlty * db RERA *HA S-eun 27 Hen UGRA]V ce, the authorily CompLaint No 5778of 2013& 1418of 2024 hereby pa(ses thrs order dnd rssu€s the tollowing directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoteras perthe function entrusted to the authority under section 34(0: The respondents/promoter is directed to refund the paid,up amount of Rs.

25,00,000/- after deducting 10% of the sale consideration of Rs.49,02,806/- beingearnest moneyalongw,than interest@11 100/o p.a. (the State Bank of India highesr marginal cosr ol lending rate (lqCLRl applicable as on date +2%) as prescribed under rule 1s ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Developmentl Ru)es, 2017 on the reiundable amounl ftom the date of liline of complaint i.e., 18.12.2023 till its realization.

A period oi 90 days is given to the respondent to comply with the directions given in this order and iailing whi6h 1ega1 consequences would follow.

28 The Complaints stands disposed ot True bc placed on the case file ofeach matter.

29.

File be consignedto registry. certrfred copres ot thrs order Dated:04.04.2025 tvl/h- Ki^+ fchairman) Haryana RealEstate Regulatory Authority,