MANPREET SINGH vs CLASSIC INFRASOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

ffiHARERN *.&- eunuennnr BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Complaint no. t 17 of 2OZ4 First date of hearing: O1.OZ.ZOZ4 Date of Decision: ZS.O4.ZLZ, Complainant Respondent Member for the complainant for the respondent n filed by the complainant on and Developmentl Act, of the Haryana Real Estate ' (in short, the Rules) for in it is inter alia prescribed obligations, responsibilities or the rules and regulations ment for sale executed of sale consideration, the roposed handing over the Compfaint no.17 of 2024 Mr.

Manpreet Singh Address: - House No.895, Sector-40, Gurgaon Versus M/s Classic Infra solutions Pvt.

Ltd Address: Room No.

205, Welcome plaza, S-551, School Block-ll, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 ropaM.

ORDER L.

The present complaint datedlZ.Ot.ZOZ4has under section 31 of the Real Estate violation of section 11[a)[a] of the Act whe that the promoter shall be responsible for a and functions under the provision of the Act made thereunder or to the allottee as per the inter se.

A.

Proiect and unit related details 2.

The particulars of the project, the d amount paid by the complainant, date of Page 1 of 17 APPEARANCE: Shri Krishna Saroff Shri Himanshu Singh N HARERl,, M GURUGRAM Complaint no.

17 of 2024 possession, delay period, if any, have bepn detailed in the following tabular form: S.

N.

Particulars Detailb 1 Name of the prolect Paras rene, Sector- 70A 2.

Area ofthe proiect 27.471 3 acres 3.

Nature of the project Residgntial group housing projecf 4 Unit no.

06/06-07, r-06, 6tn floor 5 Unit area ,2150 sq. ft.

6 Date of allotment 09.05.201.2 [Page 14 ofthe replyl 7 Date of buyer's agreement 10.10. lPase t072 5 of the reply.l o Possession clause H 3.7 wit with a of6n executi date o1 appro\ constrt subjecl hin a period of 42 months t additional grace period onths from the date of on of this agreement or ' obtaining oll licenses or al for commencement of ,ction whichever is later to,force maieure.

9 Due date of possession 10.10. ion 10.10.; Icalcul agreen >( t016 rted from the date of Lent] irace period is allowed 10 Total sale consideration Rs.

1,3 4,54,350/- 11 Amount paid by the complainant ns. r,sf,s+,:so7- 72 0C received on L9.05.401,7 lPaee 1103 of the replyl {v Page 2 of 17 i ii.

B.

3. ii.

HAI]EBI GUl?UGRAM Somplaint no.

L7 of 2024 13 0ffer of possession 29.06 lPase t01.7 16 of the replyl t4 Conveyance deed dated 28.02. lPase 018 8-84 ofthe replyl Facts of the complaint The complainant has made the follc That on 1Oth October 2012,theC being Apartment No.

01, locater with a super area admeasuring I meters), in the residential projec Irene", situated at Sector-70A, G "the said Unit"J.

The booking wa Agreement [hereinafter referred )wlng s ompla lonth 2150 s, t of the urugre s done toas" q bmissions in the complain ant booked a residential fli 6th Floor of Tower No.

0 ft. (equivalentto 199.74 s lespondent known as "Par r (hereinafter referred to ry executing a Builder Buy BAfll. and an initial nevme Y--r.t, ----- ---- -------- r-,/ __ r&airt at the time of bookin [t that the rate charged wi ie then-prevailing statutor was further assured that tt t and that the Complainar or.unforeseen charges.

Tt ld that possession ofthe saj i months from the date r 76. rtions and assurances, tll 3r the terms of the BBA, th was fixed at <1,32,54,350 / all applicable taxes and/r )cution of the agreement.

Page 3 of17 ot \LZ,a1,a Il /- was maqe Dy Ine Lomp The Respondent assured the Complain competitive and in consonance with ' rates, with no hidden charges involved. pricing structure would be transparel would not be burdened with any extrr Respondent also categorically represen Unit would be handed over within 4 execution of the BBA, i.e., by 9th April 2 Relying upon the aforesaid represen Complainant booked the said Unit.

As I total sale consideration for the said Uni which, as per the Respondent, include other statutory dues as on the date of e; a p K plaint: tial flat, No.

06, ).74 sq. , ).74 sq. "Paras rd to as " Buyer ryment ooking. ed was rtutory hat the lainant es.

The he said late of the the ) /-, /or {v ffi& iv.

HARERA GURUGRAM Subsequent to the execution ofthe BB the Respondent unilaterally and arbitrarily increased the basic sale nsideration of the said Unit from {1,32,5 4,350 / - to 17,42,82,497 I -, without assigning any valid reason or justification for the same.

D ite the unjustified increase, d faith, deposited the entire the Complainant, under protest and in g revised amount of i1,42,82,491/- wi the Respondent on various dates as and when the respective ent demands became due. issued by the Respondent A true copy of the confirms that the Comp following payments: o \1,29,1,7,904/- as principal amo o 12,52,522l- deposited by way of ed deposit towards VAT; <11,02,698 / - acknowledged by issued receipts.

Respondent through duly It later transpired that the Respondent d been charging an inflated rate towards External Development (EDCJ, which exceeded petent authorities, In order actually deposited with the Department of Town and Country P (DTCPJ, Haryana or other relevant authorities on account of and Internal Development Charges (lDC), the Complainant had, ce 2075, repeatedly sent emails to the Respondent seeking c cation and a detailed break- up of the deposits made.

However, d Respondent failed to provide any response. ite numerous requests, the tisfactory or transparent As per Clause of the BBA, the Responde possession of the said Unit within 4 t was obligated to hand over months from the date of before 9th April 2016 [the plaintno.

17 of2024 the statutory rates prescribed by the cc to ascertain the veracityg! thq_amounl U execution of the agreement, i.e., on or Page 4 of 17 fi. ffiHABEBA S* eunueRnvr mplaint no.L7 of 2024 deemed date of possession). ssession).

Howev offered by the Respondent only on inordinate and unexplained delay of n timing of possession-just two days p the Goods and Services Tax (GST) demonstrates a malafide and strategi liabilities arising from GST, while Complainant. vii.

It is pertinent to note that under ap EDC rate prevalent in201,2 was 1307.7 Respondent illegally charged 1361/- pe execution. viii.

The excess amount charged towards r, possession was actually 29th June 2017-after an ly 1,4 months.

Notably, the or to the implementation of gime on 1st fuly 2077- intent to avoid additional undue burden on to the 23 /71 /2070, the statutory per sq. meter.

However, the sq. meter at the time of BBA Act. cable law and government notifications, the EDC/lDC payable by a eveloper cannot exceed the ed at the time of grant of bmount, including interest 'i. ryments, if incurred by the developer, cannot be passed on to all As per Notification No.

H U DA.CCF.AC CTT -t-20 70 / 4 497 3 amounting to <1,,L4,407 / -, in the final account statement.

This conduct amounts to e ement of funds and is a clear instance of unfair trade practice deficiency in service within the meaning of the Consumer Protectio The Respondent unlawfully demanded sum of <49,450/- from the is statutorily the liability of Complainant towards labour cess, whic the builder and not ofthe homebuyer. bour cess is collected by the lding plans and is calculated government at the time of approval of b Page 5 of 17 & HARERA GURUGRAM at 1,o/o of the estimated cost of constru on ofthe entire project.

The wrongful recovery of this amount from the Complainant amounts to unfair trade practice and unjust enri ent by the Respondent.

The Respondent further demand <3,17,308/- from the Complainant towards VAT.

The Co plainant had already paid 14, as duly acknowledged by <64,7 86 / - for the period up to 3t / 03 /Z the Respondent. espondent.

Furthermore, the Co plainant submitted a fixed deposit of 12,52,522 /- for the period be kept as lien until final assessmen Respondent, without any intimatio encashed the said FD, despite the ce of final VAT assessment.

This amounts to misappropriation and misuse of funds and reflects fraudulent intent and gross deficiency i service.

Despite multiple representations qding various defects in workmanship in the said Unit, the R€spondent executed the on on 28/03/2018 e same date, the Respondent also issued a letter confirming that all d es had been settled and that no disputes or claims remained in re of the Unit.

However, this was contradicted by subsequent condu of the Respondent.

Despite confirming that no outstanding plaint no.

L7 of2o24 the Respondent wrongfully demand Area MaintenanceJ and club usage ch r 01/0a/2014, which was to by the tax authorities.

The or consent, prematurely ues or claims were pending, additional CAM (Common es for a prior period of two years, which had already elapsed.

Th demands were not only retrospective but also made after full final settlement. xiii.

In response to the Complainant's detail explanation via email dated ived possession only on 22/04/2020-stating that he had Page 6 of 17 xlv. xv.

C.

4. l.

HARIRA ffi GURUGRAM 28/03/2018 and had already paid years' advance maintenance and club charges-the Respondent vi arbitrarily classified residents into two e email dated 26/0412020 tegories: o Those who paid 2 years'advan possession (28 / 06 /2017); within 90 days from offer of o Those who did not.

This classification was unjustified, Respondent itself delayed possessi especially considering the explanation or com by 14 months without ndent imposed liability for CAM and club and 73 /08120 /201,7 for the first category e Complainant in the latter category, even though en only on 28/03/2078.

This is arbitrary, discriminatory, and natural justice. l justice. violation of the principles of As per the BBA, possession was to delivered by 09 /0a/2016.

However, possession was offered only n 30/06/2017, and actually delivered on 28/03/2018.

The Comp t is therefore entitled to The complainant has sought following reli Direct the respondent to refund the 1,14,401/- along with interest @ 2lo/o that is 28.07.2017 till the date of paym ii.

Direct the Respondents to refund th 016 to 29/06/2077, at a excess EDC amount i.e.

Rs. .a from the date of payment excess ECC amount i.e.

Rs. compensation for the delay from reasonable interest rate. t to the complainant.

15,000/- along with interest @ 210/o p.a m the date of payment that the complainant; Complaint no.

17 of 2O24 is 28.07 .2017 till the date of payment Page 7 of 17 & HARERA GURUGRAM iii.

Direct the Respondents to refund the 1,09,650 /- along with interest @ Zto/o till the date of payment to the compl iv.

Direct the Respondents to refund the 3,17j08/- along with interest @ 2lo/o till the date of payment to the comp v.

Direct the Respondents to refund the Rs.

49,450/- along with interest @ 210/0 that is 28.07.2077 till the date of payme Reply filed by the respondent.

The respondent had contested the complai That it is not denied that the Respo housing project known as "Paras Irene" obtained requisite licenses from DG possession, arbitrary cost escalations, in gross breach of the Builder Buyer Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Complainant admits having en 10.10.20L2 and making payments as pe However, the Respondent unilaterally sale consideration from <7,32,54,350 / giving any legal or contractual justifica the agreed terms and a case of unfair While the Respondent attempts to str payments by the Complainant, it is not duly made all payments as per the D.

5. t.

I I.

III.

Page 8 of 17 mplaint no.17 of 2024 excess EEC amount i.e.

Rs. .a from the date of payment t; excess VAT amount i.e.

Rs. from the date of payment Labour cess amount i.e. . unt i.e. .a from the date of payment t to the complainant. t on the following grounds: nt has developed a group l Sector 70A, Gurugram, and lP.

However, the issue in he project, but the delayed illegal demands, which are Agreement (BBAJ and the red into the BBA dated the terms of the agreement. d arbitrarily increased the to <1.,42,82,491/- withour on.

This is a clear breach of e practice. the importance of timely orthy that the Complainant yment schedule, including {v HARERA M GURUGRAM excess and disputed demands und Respondent defaulted in meeting its over timely possession and adhe dealings.

The Respondent's generalized justifica unspecified "circumstances" as the cau liability.

The BBA clearly stipulates poss execution (i.e., by 09.04,20t6).

Howev 29.06.2077 and han unjustified delay of V.

The Respondent failed to disclose statutory bar that hindered timely d such vague deflections do not amo Complainant is therefore entitled to co While the Respondent argues that the it conveniently ignores that the contra( o ExcessEDC/lDC/ECC/HEC VII.

Furthermore, Section 2(1)(0 of the categorically defines such conduct as "u The issuance of Occupation Certificate not nullify the Respondent's delay in o between the agreed delivery date (09.

IV.

VIII. remains unexplained.

The mere existen Page 9 of t7 mplaint no.L7 of 2024 r Arbitrary increase in sale price, o Unjustified levy of VAT and labo .

Imposition of CAM/club charges protest.

In contrast, the ntial obligation - handing to transparent financial n of "dynamic process" and of delay cannot absolve it of ion within 42 months from , possession was offered on 3.2018, amounting to an y force majeure event or ry.

Under consumer law, to valid justification.

The pensation for this delay. es are bound by contract does not authorize: cess, or r periods before possession.

Consumer Protection Act trade practice." oc) dated 23.06.2017 does ng possession.

The delay .2016) and OC (23.06.

OC (23.06.2017) of OC also does not excuse: A, HARERA P* GURUGRAM E.

7.

6. (v Page 10 of 17 laint no.

L7 of2O24 Failure to rectify workmanship d Demand ofcharges post-0C but p possession, Non-disclosure of financial state nts on EDC/IDC.

The fact that other allottees took Complainant's legal claims based statutory violations.

The Respondent denies overcharging t fails to counter the specific documentary evidence provided by the omplainant, including: o Overcharged EDC: <1,14,401,/- statements, and official communicati made only blanket denials without backing. ion is irrelevant to the contractual and distinct on 2010 notification), before 28.03.2078. while the Respondent has computation or statutory ncashed unilaterally), ur cess: <49,450/-, o Arbitrary maintenance and club c The Complainant has already substan ese with receipts, bank Copies of all the relevant documents have filed and placed on the record.

Their authenticity is not in disputr Hence, the complaint can be decided on the basis of these undisp made by the parties. f urisdiction of the authority documents and submission The authority observed that it has territo as well as subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present co plaint for the reasons given below: E.l Territorialiurisdiction a a HARERA ffi GURUGRAM o.

9.

F.

Findings on the relief sought by the comp Page 7l of 17 mplaint no.

L7 of 2024 As per notification no.

1192/2017-1TCP ted 1,4.12.2017 issued by Town and Country Planning Departmen Haryana the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, G shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with offices situat in Gurugram.

In the present case, the project in question is situated Gurugram District, therefore this autho n the planning area of ty has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present compl t.

E.II Subiect-matteriurisdiction Section 11( l[a) of the Act provides responsible to the allottee as per agreeme reproduced as hereunder: the promoter shall be t for sale. for sale.

Section 11( )(a) is Section 17 (4) The promoter sholl- (a) be responsible for all obligations, nsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or made thereunder or to the allottees e rules and regulations s per the agreement for sale, or to the case may be, till the buildings, as the case may be, to the allottees, or the com areas to the association of allottees or the competent authori ,, as the case may be; Section 34-Functions of the Authority: 34(fl of the Act provides to ensure cor ce of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real te agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder.

L0.

So, in view of the provisions of the Act of 2016 quoted above, the authority has complete jurisdiction to d de the complaint regarding promoter leaving aside the adjudicating officer if non-compliance of obligations by th compensation which is to be decided b pursued by the complainant at a later F.l ll. lll.

V.

HARERi GURUGRAM Direct the respondent to refund the 1,74,401/- along with interest @ 21.0/o iv.

Direct the Respondents to refund the Labour cess amount i.e. m the date of payment that is 28.07.2077 till the date of payme Ito the complainant.

11.

On the above-mentioned reliefs sought taken together as the findings in one relief of the other relief and the same being inte 12.

That the Complainant was allotted Unit .06/06-01, situated on the 6th Floor of Tower No.06, admeasuring 2 0 sq. ft. of super area, in the plaint no.

17 of2024 3,1.7,308/- along with in till the date of payment to the compli Direct the Respondents to refund th residential project of the Respondent knor excess ECC amount i.e.

Rs. excess VAT amount i.e.

Rs. @ 210/o from the date of payment the complainant is being ll definitely affect the result onnected. as "Paras lrene", located at allotment was made vide cess EDC amount i.e.

Rs. .a from the date of payment that is 28.07. is 28.07.2017 till the date of payme Direct the Respondents to refund the t to the complainant.

15,000/- along with interest @ 210/o p.a m the date ofpayment that is 28.07.2017 till the date of payment to Direct the Respondents to refund the the complainant; 1,09,650 /- along with interest @ Zto/o excess EEC amount i.e.

Rs. .a from the date of payment till the date of payment to the compl r.a nt; :cel t; Sector-7OA, Gurugram, Haryana.

The Provisional Allotment Letter dated 0 05.2012.

Subsequently, an Apartment Buyer's Agreement was d Complainant and the Respondent on 10.10 ly executed between the 01 2, thereby confirming the terms and conditions governing the said otment.

Page 12 of 17 fv ffiHARERA #[ GuRUGRAM 13.

As per clause 3.1 of the agreement the handover the possession ofthe unit by of 6 months for applying and obtaining respect ofthe complex.

The said grace peri dated 08.05.2023 passed by the Hon'ble No.

433 of 2022 tilted as Emaar MGF and Yogesh Tiwari wherein it has been to continue with the project, he accep regarding grace period of three months f occupation certificate.

The relevant p 08.05.2023, is reproduced as under:- "As per aforesaid clause of the agreement delivered within 24 months from the date of by 07.03.2014.

As per the obove said clause 71(a) period of 3 months for obtaining )ccupation provided.

The perusol ofthe 0ccupation ot page no.

317 of the paper book reveals that applied for gront of )ccupation Certificate ultimately granted on 1L.LL.2020. tt is also wetl apply and obtoin 0ccupation Certiftcate from per section 18 of the Act, if the project of the ollottee wishes to withdraw then he has the o project and seek refund of the amount or if the a withdraw from the project and wishes to conti allottee is to be paid interest by the promoter for In our opinion if the allottee wishes to continue wi the term of the ogreement regarding grace applying ond obtoining the occupation certificate. rtificate. said circumstances, the appellant-promoter grace period so provided in the agreement for the Occupation Certificate, Thus, with inclusi months as per the provisions in clause 11 (a) of completion period becomes 27 months.

Thus, possession comes out to 07.06.2014." 14.

Therefore, in view of the above ju provisions of the Act, the authority is of entitled to avail the grace period so pr Page 13 of17 Complaint no.17 of 2024 respondent was directed to ber 2016 and a grace period the occupation certificate in is allowed in terms of order ppellate Tribunal in Appeal Limited Vs Babia Tiwqri eld that if the allottee wishes the term of the agreement r applying and obtaining the rtion of the order dated of the unit was to be of the agreement i.e. the ogreement a groce etc. has been dated 1 L.

L 1..2 02 0 placed appellant-promoter has 2L.07.2020 which was that it takes time to concerned authoriA.

As is delayed and if the to withdraw from the does not intend to with the project, the month of the delay. the projecl he accepts of three months for in view of the above entitled to avail the and obtaining of grace period of 3 e agreement, the total due date of delivery of ent and considering the e view that, the promoter is vided in the agreement for N HARER,*, GURUGRAM applying and obtaining the occupation date of handing over of possession comes grace period of 6 months.

19.05.2017, and possession was formall vide Offer of Possession Letter dated 2 Conveyance Deed was executed onZB.02 complainant after lapse of more than 6 y of conveyance deed.

As discussed earlier, the complainant on 09.05.201,2, a buyer's Complaint no.L7 of 2024 cate.

Therefore, the due ut to be 10.10.2016 including L5.

In the present matter, it is an admitted t the Occupation Certificate (OC) in respect of the subject unit was o ed by the Respondent on 16.

During proceeding on Z5.04.ZQZS the complaint is barred by limitation as tht offered to the Complainant .06.2077.

Subsequently, the 018. , the 018.

The present complain! , i.e., nearly 6 years after the veyance deed. ndent stated that the complaint has filed by the from the date ofexecution the unit was allotted to ment in this regard was executed on 10.10.2012.

Though the por ssion of the unit was to be offered on or before 10.10.2076 after com same was offered only on 29.06.2017 letion ofthe project but the r receipt of occupation Ieading to execution of certificate on 19.05.2017 and conveyance deed of the same on 28.02.20 B.

So, limitation if any, for a cause of action would accrue to the comp of offer of possessionJ and not from t w.e.f .

29.06.2077 (date limitation period of three years was exp 8.02.2078.

Therefore, the on 29.0 6.2020.

The present complaint seeking reliefs was filed on 1 years w.e.f.

29.06.20L7. .07.2024 i.e., beyond three 17.

There has been complete inaction on the period of more than 7 years from the offer of the complainant for a fpossession till the present Page 14 of 17 /t, HARERA GURUGRAM complaint was filed in lanuary 2024. dormant of his rights for more thanT y forum to avail his rights.

There has been in pursuing the matter, No doubt, one enactment of the Act was to protect the in this cannot be stretched to an jurisprudence are to be ignored and are the complainant/allottees have already execution of conveyance deed.

18.

One such principle is that delay and latch apparent rights of a person.

In fac! it is r limitation for the authorityto exercise tl read with section 35 of the Act nor it is where the authority cannot interfere in certain length of time but it would be a discretion for the authority to refuse to powers of natural justice provided under of persons who do not approach expedi stand by and allow things to happen and forward stale claims.

Even equality has juncture and not on expiry of reasonable ti 19.

Further, as observed in the landmark case K.M.

Munireddy and Ors.

IAIR 2003 SC 57, held that "Law assists those who are vigil over their rights. ir rights." Law will not assist tho M rights.

In order to claim one's right, one m Page 15 of 17 Complaint no.l7 of 2024 The complainant remained and he didn't approach any uch a long unexplained delay of the purposes behind the of consumers.

However, t that basic principles of ven a go by especially when led aforesaid benefits before are sufficient to defeat the t that there is any period of powers under the section 37 at there can never be a case manner after a passage of a sound and wise exercise of iercise their extraordinary on 38[2) of the Act in case usly for the relief and who en approach the court to put to be claimed at the right e.

B,L.

Sreedhar qnd Ors.

V, l,/ the Hon'ble Supreme Court and not those who sleep who are careless of their be watchful of his rights. ffiUAREBA ffi eunueRnvr Only those persons, who are watchful an are entitled to the benefit of law.

20.

In the light ofthe above stated facts and the authority is of the view that th maintainable after such a long period of ti those who are dormant over their rights. conveyance deed dated 28.02.207g is hereunder for ready reference: The VENDEE conftrms and ac, taken over/received actual. ph. possession of the said Apartment, physically inspected and verified t, and fully satisfied himself about various installations in the sqid construction work, electrificatio fittings. water and sewage con items of work, quality of workm sp e c ifi ca ti o ns, fi tti n g s a nd fixtu re s therein and the VENDEE co complaint or clqims against the sa further confirms that it shall not ra or make any claims agai Party in future in respect of items c any of it not to have been carcied ou any reason whatsoever including over possession ofthe said Apartme or objection, if any shall be deem waived by the VENDEE.

21.

ENDEE.

Therefore, after execution of the conve allottee cannot dispute any amenities respondent and any charges paid by agreement other than statutory benefi {v Page 16 of 17 Complaint no.

L7 of 2024 careful of using their rights, pplying aforesaid principles, present complaint is not e as the law is not meant for oreover, the clause 3 of the relevant and reproduced owledges hoving cal and vacant efore taking over the VENDEE has said Apartment construction, rtment such as work, sanitary on etc. and all nship, moterials. and provided that it has no e.

The VENDEE any objections the First works or allege or completed for delay in handing qnd such claims to have been ce deed the complainant- vided to the him by the m as per builder buyers if any pending.

Once the HARE remaln.

22. lt is a sought 24.

File be co I I deed is executed and acco have been settled, no claims , no directions in this regard be effectuated at this stage. rinciple of natural justice I nobody's right should be ; when a person remained ,f time without any just cause. maintainable, and the reliefs prelu for the sake of other's dormant In light o r such an unreasonable period the above, the complaint is declined. as well as appli disposed off accordingly. u/ (viiay Goyal) Member , Gurugram .2025 GLJI?L.,IGRA Complaint no.L7 of 2024 PagelT oflT