MRS NAVEETA SEHGAL vs EMAAR MGF LAND LTD.

HARERA GTRUGRA[4 BEFORE THE ComplaintNo.

5329 of 2022 HARYANA REAI, ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, (iltRllcRAM Date of decision: 28.01.2025 NA[IT: I)T 1'HE BIJILDER M/s Edaar McF La.d Limited PROIECT NAME ''CurB.onGreenr'',Sector 102 Gurugram,H.ryand s.il cR/a129 / 2022 Iinraar MCF L!nd Lrmited CORAMI ShriAru.

Kumar ShriVijay Kumar Coyal Shri Ashok Sangwan vN. shamnjit (aur rnd NII M/s Enraar MCI Land Lnnited l ORDER lhis order shall dispose of both the complaints titled above filed before this au th ority under sectio n 3l ofthe RealEstate (Regulation and Developmentl Act, 2016 lhereinalter referred as "the Act"J read with ru]e 28 ofthe Ha'vana Real Estate (Regulation and Developmeno Rules, 2017 (hereinafter reterred as 'thc rules"l for violaiion ol section 11(4)[a) of the Act where,n it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all its obligations, responsibilities and luDctions to the allottees as per the agreement for sale execured intersc p:rtres.

Chairman *HARERA E!- a)RUGRA[/ CooplaintNo.

5329of 2022 The core issues emanating arom them are similar in nature and the complarnant[s] in the above referred mattersare allottees oftheproject, namely, "Gurgaon Greens", Situated in Sector' 102, Gurugram, Haryana, beingdeveloped by the respondent/promoter i.e., M/s Emaar MCF Land Limited.

Th€ terms and conditions of the allotment letter, buyer's agreements, tulcrum of the issue involved in all these cases pertains to failure on the part of the promote. to deliver timelypossess,on olthe units in question thus seeking award for delayed possession cha.gesand others. i The derails ofthe complaints, uDit no., date ofagreemen! possession clause, due date of possession, total sale coosiderition, total paid amount, and reliefsoitght are giv0n inthe table below: ' I ,Sector.

102, CurdBram, Harycna.

2 DTCP license no. and otter 75 of 2012 dated 31.07.2012 Valid/renewed 30 a-/.224. li*,rn*** kmdhcnu Prolects Pvt l-td and anothcr C/o EmMr MCI: [unen.p. : [unen.p. *eistoenl "* lfl";Ha ,4" * ."r"t "r uo; a"t"a osrz:orz I rcErsrtrcd !581q.'r2 \q. nns.

HRTRA rcsi\rralion vdhr! up- ] ir.r- zor': HRERA cxtension of 01012019 drlcd 02 08.2019 Possession clause as per td) nne ol hondins ovet rhe Posesslon Subject to terns al this clouse and bject to the Subject to tqns ol this clouse ond borrins lorce mojeule .onditrons, subject to the Allottee having .oqpli"d ith all thp tern. a4d rondttbn: aJ th4 Agreenent, and not being in deJauh undet any of the provisions ofdtis Agreenentond conPlionce with all ptotisions, Joti!!!i!!9rttb9!I9!!9!!Letc., as P.oiecr Nam€ and Locatio!

HARERA GURUGRAI\I -I prcscribed b! tha CamPonY, the hand over the posesian of Anng4rlllLsge !1 9.f!9rll9t!! aoaslrlrfi9L subject to tinely conpliance of the prcvisions al the Agreenent by the Allottee The Allottee ogrees ond un.leretands that the canpony shall be entitled to o sruce perlod oJ 5 (fvet cR/ 5329 /2022 Area ad-measurins 1650 sq ft. cR/s447/2022 CCN 26.0301, 3tu floor, Area ad-meisuring 1650 qo!plclrtl 1il ccN,23-0201, ALr 25 01 2013 BBA: 08.04 2013 AL, l5 01 2013 20.06.2013 ll I page 94 ol t2 comPlarn!l Duc drteulposs€ssiun lNoter 5 fronths Btd(e Peirud b!r!s qllgt!!!L (As per statem€nt or acount dated 21.07.2022 at pase 93 of Rs.1,03,87,914/' !e,!E9!e$!) dared 21.07.2022 at I comora,ntl Fs r 0460160/. tAs per statemenr of a(Lount dated 1907 2022 at PaEe 88 of T.r,l ,mount oald bv Rs.1,04,84,738/' complain0 OOP:19.07.2019 UHLI11.11.2019 complarnrl lAnnexur€ R8. page l3s Uf L Complaint No.

5329 of 2022 25172016 UHL!

1101.2020 1m rhe .lote of start o ftHARERA S-cirnuennv **rla "" I lAnne\ure Rl l. page l5o or I lannerure Rlo pase 14 I or replvl rpptv' ourr, "o.o"-*ti*Tni+:ssoli_ Fs4.o?

661/' al.e;dv Daid bv theLtA' per sul"Tent ol rmull IJ per rtalemenr ol 4'ouli *-'-*,i "i,i t" l"; I t""drre'o7 2022 at pase 8e or datedl2107'2022 at pase e4 or or the buYer's compldino R.rier roqht by th. conplain.ntl i Directrhelespondenttopavinterestatth. erestatth.rateoflS%onac.ountofdelav otr the amount prld by the .onrplainant aE sale.onsderation ofrhe said rr!md u the,lrkof deh\.ry uf possession ;'", '. ."."."",, 'eLi R-.1 12s76/ Jn'd.oh'\''."'BedDv'Fr"oo1"'Ib) mremi"g s:re p,c ,t* erecut'.n of bLver's agreemont Letween the responde'r trnd thc Dr.rdthercspondetrrtoreturntheamountofRs4,gS,OOO/ lorredu'ethcnzeofC'ntaLCreen! trrn,3 3.rts to l2zr.r.s D rect thr.espond.dr to !eturn i 3,30,000/-ln p.sttxt ofnat not faciry p33eE park a dlor rdLrIE ihe nz.ofioggelsDark ror rreanrgopen parking o*c tl" *tpo.a"m to."t,. etrtile anount paid s CST tar bv the 'omplainant wer 01 07 2017 titl24 07 2019 lr..ctthe.omplaranfsb.trktoErovethel' markcd over FD of Rs 2'23'669l ln13vourof tt'e respond.Dt or thr pretext of future Prvnrent ol HVAT lor the period of 01041014 to lloezorr anU ,l"o ar,eo tle respondent to zssist the prd'ess ol re rovins Lei fr'Dl rhe **"}l omplJnun s bankby prov'diDgNOc forrhe safre.

Dft .t tlre resp.ndent to par.n amoutrr of Rs.55,000/ ru,he.omp!d'nantsas.onof rhe p'esetrt Noie, , tl,r t.,lil. ,rtu,ed sbove ce'trn' abbreviaLons h3vr been us.d.

Thev Jre "l,b.*t; hiigation atfirevladon Fullfom TC The facts ofall thecomplaints nled bvthe complainan(sl/allottee(s) ar€ similar' out of the above-mentioned case, the particulars of lead case CR/5329/2022 Reply received by th€ r.sPondent Anountpaid bY the auo(eels Builder Buy.ls Agreement Unit H4!qg!qi!!L complaintNo,5329oI2022 5. ffiHARERA $-eunuenlu l?

0" titled os Mrs.

Naveeta sehgal v/s M/s Emoor MGF Land Llmlted xe being taken into consideration for determining the rights oathe allottee(s].

Proiect and unit related detalls The particulars of the project, the details ofsale consideration, the amount paid by the complainant, date ofproposed handing over the possess,on, delay period, ifany, hav€ been detailed in the following tabular iorml CR/5329/2022 titled as Mrs.

Noveeto Sehgol v/s M/s Emaar MCF Land limited- ComplarntNo. mplarntNo.

5329of 2022 Gurgaon Creens, Sector 102, Gurugram, l3.531acres 7 5 0f 2012 d^ted 37.07 .20 12 Valid till 30.47.2020 C/o Emaar MGF Land Ltd.

HRERA reeistered/ not vide no.36[al of2017 dated for 95829.92 sq. mtrs.

Kamdhenu Projecls Pvt.

Ltd. and.rnother Registered oF.12.2017 registereL registration valid 31.12.2018 -l IIRI.]RA 0r of2019 dnred 02.08.201q. :t1.12.2019 lannexure P2, pase 38 o.!l!4 GGN-26.0301,3 floor tower no 26.

7.

F 1650 sq. ft. i ll i ai ted t da 1.'", I r"n"1 Date 2\ 01 2013 Jannexure P1, pase 22 ofcomplai4l 9.

I uuyer's ae.ee.ent 08.04.2013 tanle4rql4llsqgsofcomplaintl ] 14.

POSSESSION (o) Time ol hondins ove. the Posse$ion stbject to te.ns of this clowe and borrihg lorce norure conditiont. subiect to the Attottec howns conplrcd wittr 9!l l!! !:!!t1) Nature oithe pro DTCP license no.

Extension valid u 10. ?! *HARERA S-GLTRl]GRAM C.mplaintNo 5329oi2022 proposes ta hond aver the possessian ol the Unit\|nhin 36lrhirtvSlxt months from the ond con litions oJ th6 Agteement, ond not being in deloult unde. ony ol che provjsians ol this Agreehent ond complionce with oll provisions, lortuo lities, documentation etc., os prcsctibed by the conpony, the conpony tinely conptionce oJ the Provisions al the Aoteenent by the Allottee.

The Allottee agrees and undeAtdhds thot the Canpont shall bc entitled tou groce penocl oIs Avet nonths. laupcbilsJlln obleiailgJh !9! .ertiftcdte/o.cpdtion .ertiffcate in do.e ^r stort ot connruction. subj.rt to fespect ol th. unit oh.l/or the Proiect (Enrphasis suppliedl annexure P2, ptrg+1 oicomplaint 11.

25.06.2013 construction as per statement of account dated 19.07.2022 at page q!

9l!p4pl!rL- Due date oapossession 25.t1.2016 (Note:-5 months grace period being Total consideration as Rs.1,04,60,360/. per stat.ment ol account datcd 19.07 2022 ar pa8e 88 ofcomplain Total amount paid by the Rs.1,04,84,738/- t4 rompl.inant as Per statement of account dated 19.07. ted 19.07.2022 at page 0ccupanon ceftrflcate 16 07 2019 89 oicomplaint pase 134 oireplyl 19.07.2019 llnit 138 of replyl lt-17.2079 Lenlc4rg ryq.-Lar911! i t7. dated B, 6 Facts ofthe complaint Thc complajnant has made the tbllowing submissions in the complaint: - L That the respondent had advertis€d itsellas a very ethicalbusiness group that lives onto its commitments,n delivering its housing projects as per promised quality standards and agreed timelines.

That the respondent while launching and advertising any new housing project always conrnrits and promises to the targered consumer that thejr dream home will be completed nnd delivered ta them within the time agreed initially in the agreemcntwhile sellingthe dwelling unitto them.They also assured to the consumers like complainant thai they have secured all the necessarv sanctions and approvals from the appropriate authorties for th. construction and completion ofthe realestate project sold by them io the consunrers in general.

I I That th e respondent was very well aware of the lact that in today's sce n.r rio looking at lhe status oa the co.struction of housing projects in lndia, cspecially in NCR, the key lactor to sell any dwelling unit js the deliver] ol completed house within the ngreed and p.onlised iimelines and that is the primc factor which a consumer would consider whrle purchasing his/her dream home.

Respondent, therefore used this tool, which is directly connected to emotions of gullible consumers, in its marketing plan and HARERA GURUGRAT\4 18.

Delry already paid by the respondent in terms of the buyert agreement as per statement of account dated 79.07 .2022 at page 13.01.2020 R\.4,25.564 / Cofr plalnt No.

5329 o12022 *HARERA S-qrnLnnav always represented and warranted to the consumers thattheirdream home will be delivered within the agreed timelines and consumer will not go through the hardship of paying rent along{ith the installments oi home loan like in the case olother builders in market. in market. lll That in the month oa January 2012, the respondcnt through its bus'ness developtuen t associate approached the complainant with an olier to 'nvcst and buy a flat in the proposed p.oiect ofrespondc.t, which the respond.nt was going to launch the project namely "Gurgaon Greens" in the Sector-102, Gurugranr.

On 13.02.2012 complainant had a meeting with respondent at the respondents branch omce"EmaarBusiness Park, MG Road, 5 ikand erpu r Chowk, Sector 28, Curugram 122002" whcre the respondeDt explain the project details of Curgaon Greens" and hiEhlight the amenitics oi the p.oject like loggers Park, loggers Track, Rose garden,2 swimmins pool, anrph ithenter and many more and told that tower 2 3 ,24,25, and 25 is onlv available ior advance booking and each tower will have G+13d floors and on every 13di floo. oa these towers there will be a penthouse which possessing floor no 126 and 13s floor, on relaying on these details complainant enquire theavailabilityof flaton 3i floorinTower 26which ilis a unit consisting a.ea 1650 sq. ft., respondent represented to the co m plar nant that the responde nt is a very eth ical busr ness house in the ileld ol construction of residential and commercial proiect and in case thc c.mplain.rnt would invest in the project of respondent then they would deliver the possession of proposed flat on the asmred delvery date rs pe' the best quality assured by the respondent.

The complainant while relving upon those assura.ces and believing them to be true, comPlainant booked a "esrdentialflat bearing no.0301 on 3'd floor in Tower - 26 in the proposed proiect olthe respondent measuring approxintatelv super ar€a of 1650 5q ComplaintNo.

5329of 2022 9HARERA &.crrnrr+lnr IV lr. r 'l-- rownship to be de\eloped by espondpnr.

Ac,ordingl). rhc compla,nant have paid Rs.7,s0,000/-through cheque bearing no.

644977 dated 13.02.2012 & cheque no.

010724 dated 13.02.2012, as booking anount on 13.02.2012.

Thereafter on 22.04.2013, builde.

3, builde. buyer agreement was executed on similar iuegal, arbitrary, unilateral a.d discriminatory terms narrated by respondent in provisional allotment letter.

That rs per the clause 14 of the said fla( buyer's agreement d.rted 06.04.2013, the .espondent had agreed and promises to conrplete the construction ofthe said flat and deliver its possession within a period of36 months ilith a five (S) months grace period thereon lrom the date olstart of construction.

Hoivever, the respondent has breached the terns oi sa fl.rt buyer agreemenl and failed to fulfill its obligations and has not d€livered possession ofsaid flat within the agr€ed time frame ofthe builder That:s per nnnexure-lll (s.hedule of payments) olbuyer's asreement the sales consideration ior said flat was Rs.96,70,883/ lwhich includcs the cla.ses towards basic sale price of Rs.77,59,983/-, Government chnrges ttDC & lDCl, Rs.5,70,900/', club membership charges o1Rs.50,000/-, IFMS of Rs.82,500/, carparkingof Rs.3,00,000/-,PLCfor3rdflooroaRs82,s00/' PLC rorjossers park Rs.3,30,000/- and PLC for CentralGreen Rs.4,95,000/ I exclusive oi Service Tax and GST, but later at the time of possession respondent add Rs.30,076l-in sale consideratioD and increase sale consideration to Rs.97,00,959/ without any reason aor the same and rspondent also charge lFlvls Rs.82,500/ separately, whereas IFMS Charges already included in sale coDsideration and thal way respondent charge lFMS twice trom residents.

Respondcnt increased the sale consideration by Rs.1,12,s76l- (Rs.30,076l- + Rs.82,500/ ) without any Pase 9 or33 ComplaintNo,5329ot2022 HARERA ComplaintNo.

5329 o12022 GI]RUGRA[/ reason, which is an illegal, arbnrary, unilate.al and uDfair trade practice.

Complainant opposed the increase in sales consideration at time of pojsession but respondent did not pay any attention to complainant.

VL That the complainant has paid the entire sale consideration along with applicable taxes to the respondent for the said flat. said flat.

As per the statement dated 19.06.2022, issued by the respondent, upon the request of the cornplainant, the conlplainant have already Paid Rs 1,00,55,596/ towards toralsale consideration and applicabletaxes as on todayto the respondcnt asdemnnded time to tlme and novn nothing is pendingto be paid on the Pa.t ol complainant.

Ahhough the respondent charges Rs.112 5761 extdafton], Vll.

That on the date agre€d for the delivery of possession ol said unit as per dite of booking and later on according to the flat buvers agreement is 2:.06.2016, the complainant had apProached the respondent and its ofticers ior inquiring the status of delivery of possession but none had bothered to provrde any satistactory answer to the complainant about the completion and deliverY said flat.

VI1l.

That the ofter ol possession ofiered by respondent through "lntimation oi Possession' wasnotavalidofleroipossessionbecauserespondentolfered the possession on dated 19.07.2019 with stringent condition to paycertain arnounts which are never be a part of agreement and respondent did not even receive the completion certificate oi various other towers ol the p oject and at on 19.07.2019 project was delaved approx 3 vears and 3 n'onths.

At the time of offer ol possession builder did not adjusted the p.nalty ror delay possession as per the Act oi 2016.

In case of delav pryment, buildcr charged the pe.altv @ 24% per annum and in delay 'n possession builder givcs Rs7.5/ sq ft. onlv this is illegal, arbitrarv' HARERA GURUGRAIT/ unilateral and discr,minatory.

Respondent also demanded an lndemnity' cum'unde.taking along wjth final payment, ivhich is illegal and unilateral demand.

Respondeni did not even allow complainanrs to visit the property at'Gurgaon G.eens" before clearing th e fi nal demand raised by respondent along wi th the o ffer ol possessi on.

Respond ent demanded two year advance N{ ainten a. ainten a.ce charges fro nr complainants wh ich was never agreed under the buyer's agreement and respondent also dcmandcd a lean marked FD of Rs 2,23,669/ in pretext of luture liability against HVAT (for the period oi 01.04.2014 to 30.0620171which isalso a unfairtrad. practice.

Complainant inlorned the respondent about hls unfair calculation of delay possession penalty aDd also eDquires the const.uction status ot rest ofpro,ect through telephonically but nothing changed and respondent does not want to answe. any enquiry before getting complete payment against his final demand.

Respondent lelt Do other option to complainant, but to pay thc payment Two year maintenance charges Rs.1,44,540/- and submit a fixed deposit ol Rs.2,2 3,669l' with a lien marked in favour oiEmaar MCF Land linrited and Rs.2,69,040/- tou,ards e'Stamp duty and Rs.45,000/' towards registrationcharges of above saidunit no.

0301,Tower26,Gurgaon Crccns in addition to finaldemand raised by respondent along w,th the ofter oi possession.

Respondent give physical handover or aforesaid prope.ty on date 04.10.2019.

Ix.

That .rfter taking possession of flat on 04.10.2019, the complainant also identify that some majo. structurnl changes wcrc done by respondent in project "Gurgaon Greens" in comparison to features of project narrated to complaiDant on 13.02.2012, area of central park was told 8 ac.e but in reality it is very small as compare to 8 acre nnd rcspondent also build .ar parking underneath 'central park Respondent placed stone curbs in pLt.e I Complaint No.

5329 of 2022 Complain!No,5329of 2022 HARERT GURUGRATVI I andsaaT at2t)22 | of Jogging track !o save the cost.

The complete view of roggers Park is rest.icted by the stair case ol Tower'2 6 and respondentalso reducethesize of jogeers pa.k by creating an extra open parkjng space in the project, respondent did not return the PLC charges ior proportion reduced by the respondent from joggers park. gers park.

Respondent charge exceptionally high PLC fron complainant without even transferring the ownership rjghts ol amenities to complainart on the common area ol project.

Respondent compelled almost every flat owner (total 6721 through unilateral buyer's agreement to pay PLC ofRs.4,95,000/- for Cen tral Park whereas respondcnt sell car prrking of Rs.3,00,000/ each underneath central park, this way respondent sell same area t$,ice to residents and collect exceptionally bigh and unilateral and unjustilied PLC lrom complainant.

Respondent only nread grass on .oofofcovered parking area and sell it as 'Central Creen" at erceptionally high rate o1Rs.4,95,000/- each.

That th.

GST Tax rvhich has come rnto forcc on 01.07.2017. it is a lresli lax.

The possession of the apartment was supposed to be deUvered to complninant on 14.06.2016, therefore, the tax which has comc into cxisicnce after the due date ofpossession offlat, this extra cost should not be levied on complainant, sirce the same would not have lallen on (he complainant if respondent had offer the possession oiflat w,thin the time sripulated in the builde. buyer agreement.

On 04.10.2019, complainant infonn respo.dent telephonically that respondent is creating anomaly by not conlp.nsatinS the complainant for delay possession charges at thc ratc olinterest specified in the Act of 2015. 'Ihat the cause of action accrued in lavour olthc complainant and against thcrespondcnton i3.02.20l2,whenthecomplajnanthadbookedthcsanl flat and it furthcr arose when respondent lailcd /neglected to delivcr thc xt trHARERA S- cltnLtcnlv complalntNo.5329of 2022 said flat on proposed deliverydate.The cause ofaction iscontinuing and is still subsisting on day-to-day basis.

Reliefsought by the complainant: _ The complainant has sought lollowing relief[s) | L Direct the respondentto pay,nterest at the rate of 18% on accountofdelay in offering possession on the amount paid by the complainant as sale consideration oi tbe said flat irom the t irom the date of payment till the date oi delivery of possession. ll.

Drrect the respondent to return Rs.1,12,576l_ unreasonably charged by the respondcnt by increasnrg sale price after executjon of buyer's aS.eenrent beiween the respondent and thecomplainant.

Ill Direct th e resp ond enl to .etu rn the amount o f Rs.4,9 5,000/' size ofCentral Greens from I acres to 1.22 acres. lV Difcct the respondent to return { 3,30,000/_ in pretext ol loggers pa.k and ior reducing the size of jogger's park f,or pnrking.

V.

Direct the respondent to return entire amount paid as GST tax by the conrplanrant w.e.f.

01.07.2017 ti'll 24.07.2019.

Vl.

Direct the complainant's bank to remove dre lien marked over FD ot Rs.2,23,669/' in favour oithe responden! on the pretext of iuture paynrent of HVAT lor the period of 01.04.2014 to 30.06.2017 and also direct the respondent to assist the process of removing lien irom the comPlainantt bank by providing NOC for the same vll D irect th e respondent to pay a n amoun t o f Rs.5 5,000/_ to the complainants c.

7. flat not facing at cosl ot the Present litigahon. ffHARERA S- GURUC,RAN/ 8.

On the date of hearing, the authority explained to the respondent about the contraventions as alleged to have been committed in section 11(4) (a) oftheActto plead suiltyornot to plead guilty.

D.

Reply by the respondent The respondenthas contested the complaint on the foUowing grounds:' L That the present complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts. lhe complainant has fi1ed the p.esent complaint seeking refund of several amounls and interest fo. alleged delay in delivering possession of the apartment bookcd by the complainant.

The complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to ftle the present complaint- The present complaint is based on an erroneous interpretation ofthe provisions ofthe Act as wellas an incorrect understanding ofthe terns and conditions ofthe buyer's agreement dat€d 08 04.2013.

8 04.2013.

The respondent craves leave ol this Authority to refer to and rely upon the te(rs and conditio.s set out in the buyer's agreement in detail at the time of the }eariDg of the present conrplaint, so as to bringout the m utual obtigaiio ns and the responsibilities ofthe respondent as well as the complainant 11.

That the complainant is estopped by his own acts, conduct, acquiescence, laches, omissions etc. kom fil,ng the present complaint.

The complainant has slready obtained possession of the unit in question and has, further, executed a conveyancede.d regardingthe uni! in question.

The transaction between the complainan t and the respondent stands completed/concluded.

The rcliefs sought in the fahe and frivolous complaint are barred bv I1l.

Thnt the instant complaint is barrcd by linritation.

The complainant has alleged that the respondent was obligated to ofler Possession ofthe unit rn question by Iune, 2015 and by way of the instant complaint have souBht CompLaintNo.5329ol2022 Complaint No.

5329 of 2022 !A RAM ARE URUG H G interest ior indemnirying them for the alleged delay in delivery otthe unit in question.

That causeofaction, if any, fo r seeking interest acc.ued in lavor of the complainant in 2016 and consequently the instant complaiDt is barred by limitation.

That the complainant had purchased the unit in question as a speculative investmentwith an intent to gain monetarybenerits by reselling/leasingout thc samc.

Therefore, there is no equity in lavor ofthe complainant That thereafter the complninant vides an appli.ation form applied to the respondent for provisional allotment of a unit in the proiect. lhe .onrplainant, in pursuance ofthe aloresaid application lorm, was allotted an indepeDdent unit bsaring no GCN-26.0301, located on the 3rd floor, in the Drotect vidc provisional allotment letterdated 25.01.2013.

5.01.2013.

The complainant consciously and wiltully opted for ir construction linked plan for remittance ofdresale consideration forlhe unit in question and fu fther .epresented to the respondent that she shall renrt every installment on time as per the payment schedule.

The .espondent had no reason to suspect the bonafide ofthe complainant 3nd proceeded to allorthe unit irr qucstion in her lavor.

The complainant furthe. undertook to be bound by the terms and conditions ol the application form/allotment lette..

Iherealter, buycis agreement dated 08.04.2013 was exccuted betweerr the both the pa(ies.

Th.rt the conrplainaDt w3s irregular in payment of iDstalments.

I-he respondent was constrained to issue reminders and letters to the complainaDt requesting her to make paynrent of the amounts duc and payable byhcr.

Paymcnt request letters, remindersetc. hadbeen gotsentto the conrplarnantby the respondentclearly mentioning theamount that lvas outstanding and the due date for remittance ofdre respective amounts as per the schedule ol payments, reqLresting hcr to timely dischar8c hcr Pagc 15 tl33 IV, #HARERA S- crrnrcnnur vt. v Complaint No.

5329of 2022 outsta.ding tinancial liability but to no avail.

Calculation sheet correctly maintained by the responden! in due course olits business depicting dclay in remittance ofvarious payments by the complainant.

That the rights and obligations of complainant as well as respondent are completely and entirely determined by the covenants incorporated in the buyer'r agreement which continues to be binding upon tbe parties thereto $rith full force and effect.

Clause 14 ofthe buyer's agrecment p.ovides th.rt subject to the allottees havingcomplied with all theternN and conditions of the agrecnreni, and not being in default of the same, possession orthe unit would be handed over within 36 months plus grace period of 5 months, from the date of sta.t ol construction. struction.

In the buyer's agreement that time period for delivery oipossession shau stand extended on the occurrence of delay lor reasons beyond the control ofthe respondent.

Furthermorc, it is cntegorically exprcssed in clause 1a(bl[v) that in the event ofany default or delry in payment of instalmenis as per the schedule of payments rncorporatcd in the buyert agreement, the tinre to. delivery ot possession shall also stand extended.

That as per clause 16 oi the buyer's agreement iurther provides that conrpensation for any delay in delivery ofpostession shall only be given to such allottees who are not in delault oitheir obligations envisaged under the agreement and who have not defaulted in Payment ofinstalments as pcr the pnyment plan incorporated in the agreement.

Complainant, having defaulred in payment of instalmenls, is thus not entitled to.rny conrpensalion or any amount towards rntercst under the buyer's agrcement.

The complainant by way oi instant complaint is demanding inlerest for alleged delay in delivery of possessron.

The interest is VIII. t\ gHARERA S-crrnrnnlv compLarntNo.5329ot2022 compensatory in nature and cannotbegranted rn derogationand ignorance olthe provisions ofthe buyeis agreement.

Despite there being a number ol delaulters in ihe proJect, the respondent itselflnfused iunds into the prolect and has dilig.ntly developed the project in question.

The respondent has applied ior occupation certificate on 11.02.2019. occupation certificate was thereafter issued in favour ot the .espondent vjde memo bearing no ZP-83slADIRA]/2018/16816 daled 16.07.2019.

Once an applicanon for grant ol occupntion certificate is submitted for approval in the office ot the concerned statutory autho.ity, the respondeDt ceases to have any control over the same.

The Srant of sanction ol the occupation certificate is the prerogativc of the concenred statutory authority over which the respondent cannot exercise any influence. influence.

As far as the respondent is concerned, it has diligently and .'ri,"rcl) pur'JFd ihe mdrler sirn Ih" concFrned !ldrdrory durhvr].v lor obtnining ofthe occupation certilicate.

No iault or lapse can be attributed to thc respondent in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Therefore, the tinre pe.iod utilised by the statutory authority to grant occupation certiflcate to dre.espondent is necessarily required to be excluded from computation oi the time period utiliscd tor implenrentation nnd developmcnt of the prolect.

Without admitting or ncknowledging the truth or legality ofthe allegat'ons advanced by the complainant and without prejudice to the contentions of the respondent, the provisjons of th.

Act are not retrospective in nature.

The provisions olthe Act cannot undo or modily the terms ofan agreement duly executed prior to coming into efleci oathe Act.lt is further submittcd that merely because the Actapplies to ongoing prolects which are registered ivith the authority, thc Act cannot be said to bc operrting rctrospectively ffHARERA s, oURTJGRAI/ The provisions of the Act relied upon interest cannot be called in to aid in provisions oi the buyer's agreement.

The and cannot be granted inderogation and buyer's asreement. by the complainant for seeking derogation and ignoraoce of the interest ,s compensatory in nature ignorance ofthe provisions ofthe x \l Thatthecomplainantwas oflered possession oltheunitin questionthrough letterof ofterolpossession dated 19.07.2019 lhecomplainantwascnlled upon to remit balance payment including delayed payment charges and to complete the necessary formalilies/docurnentatron necessary iorhandover of the unit in questioD to the complainant.

An offer lor possession m.rrks t.rmiDatioD ot th. period ofdelay, ifany.

The complajnant is not entiiled lo contend that the alleged period oidelay continued even afte. receipt of otfer tor possession. ossession.

The complainant has conscjously and maliciously refrained hom obtaining possession of the unit in question.

Consequently, the conrplainant is liable for the consequences including holding char8es, as , riJmrra eJ rn the bJyer's dgreemenr.

Io' nor obtdining po<:esnon That after a delay of4 months, the complainant approached the respondent requesting it to deliver the possession of the unit in question.

A unit handover letter dated 11.11.2019 was executed by the complainant, specifically and expressly agreeiDgtharthe liabilities and obligations oi the respondent as enumerated in the allotment lette. orthebuyert agreenrent stand satislied.

The complarnant has preierr.d the instant complaint on rbsolutely lalse and extraneous grounds irr order to needlessly vichnrise and harass the respondent.

That aftcr execution of the unit handover letter dated 11.11.2019 and obhining ofpossession ofthe unit in question. the.omplainant is lettlvith no righ!, entitlemeDt or claiDr against the respondcnt.

It nccds lo be PaBe 1a ol33 Complaint No.5329 of 2022 IIT f,LIABERA --e- GLIRUGRATV highlighted that the complainant has lurther executed a conveyance deed dated 13.01.2020 in respect ofthe unit in questron.

The complaint has been liled after 2 years of execution of the conveyance deed- The present complaint has been filed as an afterthought to extract monies from the respondent.

Thus the present complaint is time barred and deserves to be d'sm'ssed at ths very threshold wiih exemplary costs.

Therefore, the transaction between the complainant and the respondent has been concluded in January 2020 and the complainant is not leat with any claim :rgainst the respondent.

Ihe transaction between the complainant and the respondentstands concluded and no rightorliabilitycdn beasserted by the r.spondcnt orthc complainantagainstthe other.

The instantcomplaint isa gross misuse oiprocess of law.

XI1l.

That the complainant has also executed aD indem.ity cum undertaking dated 30 09. ted 30 09.2019, whereby the complajnant had declared .nd acknowledged that they have no ownership right, title or interest in any other pa( of the proiect except in the unit area of the unit in question.

N4oreover, the complainant has admitted her obligation to discharge dreir HVAT liability thereunder.

The complainant has tiled the instant false.rnd frivolous complaint in order to mount undue pressure upon respondent in orderto make it succumbto his u njust and illegitimate demands.

XlV.

That the respondent has paid an amount al Rs-7A,259/ as benefit on accountof anti-proiiting and Rs.3,577l onaccountof eadypayment rebrte [EIrR).

Furthermore, an amount ol Rs.4,25,564/ + Rs.32,141l- has been credited by the respondent to the account olthe complainant as a gesture ol goodwill The aforesa id a mou nt has been accepted by the complai nant in lulland finalsatisfaction ofhis alleged griev.nces.Thc instant compl.rint rs nothing buta gross misuse ofprocess of law ComplaintNo.5329of 2022 C.hpLan'!

No.

5329 ot2022 .

HADED L.-.d r No C1?oo'lOl. .

C J?LC)AV d.o s447 d zor- That sevcral allottees, including the complainant, have defaulted in timely remittan.e of payment of installments which was an essential, crucial and an indispeDsable req u irem ent lor conceptualisatron and development of the project in question.

It is submitted that the construction ol the tower in which the unit jn questjon is situated is complete and the respondent has already offered possession of the unit i. queshon to the.omplaiDant.

Therefore, there is no delault or lapse on th. part ol the .espond.nt and there in no equity in aavo ur of the complainant Fro m the entire sequence of events,thatno illegalitycan beattributed to the respondent.

Thu s, itis most respectfully subnritted thatthe present compl.int deserves to be dismjssed at the very threshold.

That it is stated that the inception of GST w.e f.

01.07.2017 is not a new law but transformation/reorganiz.ttjon and conglomeratio. lomeratio. oi two already exjstingtaxes i.e.

VAT and SeNice Tax.

Theallottees are burdened w'th ncw tax li abilities in th c iorm of GS] bu t the allottees are on ly paying up the taxes under the new regime.

The allottees are also being forwarded the benelits ofantiproliteering and input tax credit in thc GST.egime.

Moreover, as per the buildcr buycls agreement, taxes shallbe payablc as perthe government rules as appllcable irom time to time.laxes are levi.d as per government norms and rulesand are leviable in respectofreal estate projects as per the government polcies tiom time to time.'I'hereforc, thcrc is no substance rn the plea olthe complainants in regard to lhe illegalrty ofthe levyingotthe said taxcs in case the proiect rs being d.layed, as delay in completion ofthe pro,ect has no nexus with avoiding payment in lorm ofGovernment Taxes, which otherwise also were to be borne by thc allottees in terms of the respectivc buyer's agreement.

XVI i *HABEITA *@- eltnLtr,nnv complaintNo.5329ot2022 XVIL That it is evident fiom the entire sequence ol events, that no iuegahly or lapse can be attributed to the respondent.

Thus the allegations levelled by the complainants qua the respondent are totally baseless and do not nrerit any coDsideration by this Authority.

The present complaint is nothing but an abuse ofthe process of1aw.

Thus, it is most respectlully submitted lhat the present complarnt des.rves to bc dismissed at the very threshold.

XVIll.

All other avennents madc in thc complaints were denied in toto.

10.

Copres oiallthe relevant documents have been filed and placed on the rccord. 'l herr authenti.ity is not iI dispute.

Hence, the complarnt can be decided on the basis oithese undispulcd documents and submission nrade by the parties. [. lurisdiction ortheauthority ll.

1'hc authority observes that ir has territorial as rvell as sub)ect matter lurisdiction to adjudicate the presenl .omplaint for the reasons given below E.l Territoria I jurisdiction 12. iction 12.

As per notification no.1/92/2017-ITCPdoted 14.12.2117 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction oi Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Guruqram shall be entire Curugram Distnct ror all purpose wiih otlices situated in Curugram. ln the present cas., the project in question is srtuatcd within the planning area ol Gurugram District.

Therefore, thrs authorily has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present E,ll Subject matte. iurisdicti on 13.

Sc.tion 1l[a](a) of the Act, 2016 provides that dre promoter shall be .csponsibh to the allottee as per agreement ror sale.

Section 11[a](al is reproduced rs hereunder: GURUGRAIV [o) L)e respon:ihte Jor dtt abhgottans, respansibnttte!ond Iunctians unde. the prcvkions of th^ Act ot the tule\ ahd.egulatians nade theretndet at to thc ullo ees as pe. the alt.eet"eht Jat nte, or h tl)e osa.tattan al o t knte e s, o s the.o sc nay b e, tt I I the canreya nLe af o I I t h e u partnentt platt o. butld)h!t, atthe.o\e no| be, tothcallattces, or theconmon o.eosta thc oso.iottan afollottees or the.ampetentauthant!,asthe cose ho! be) Section 34.Functions oJ the Authority: 34 (l).1 r lle A. t provid e s ta cn sr rc con p I ta n ce al t h e a b hsa ttan s cust u p on the pramoters the tllaxeesand Ih..eote\tota ogents undetth6A.tond lte.ulcs unl, e!ulodont n)r.1. thctcrndel 1.1.

So, rn view olthe provisioDs ot the ct o12016 quoted above, the authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint rcgarding non-compliance of obLigarions by the promoterleavnrgaside compensation which is to be decided by the ad,udrcatiDgolticer ifpursucd by the complainants irta laterstagc [. objections raised bythe respord€nt.

F.l obje.tion regarding maintainability of .omplaint on account of cohplaina nt being i nvcstor, 15 l hc respondent took n stand thatthe complain:nt is investor and not consunler .rnd th. r .rnd th.relorc, she is not entitled to the protection ofthe Act and thereby not entitled to tilc the complaint under section 31 of the Act.

However, it is pe.tinent to note that any aggrieved person can file a complaint against the p.omoler if hc contravenes or violates any provisions of tbe Act or rules or rcgulntiofls made thercuDder.

Upon careful pcrusal ot all the ternr .nd condrtrons oi th. allotmen t letter, it is revealed thtrt the complainant is buytr s. and haspaid atotalpric€ofRs.1,04,84,738/_ tothe promo ier toward s pur.hase ota unit in its project.

Ar this stage, it is importantto stress upon the defin't'on ot tcrnr allottee under the Ac! dre same is rcproduccd below for read)' HARERA Complaint No.

5329or2022 ''2(d) "o otte' in relotion ro o real state Wjed neons the PeMn to |'hon a ploC aportnent ot building, os the coe noy be, hos been allotced, sold (vheth* osfteehold or ledsehold) or otie hendnsle ed bt the pronots, ond in lu.l4 the peson who subsequently dcquires rhe soid ol)otnent rhtuugh le, nanslet or otheNke but does not inclLde o pe\on to \|hon such Plot, oporanqt ot btildins, as the case noy be, is siveh on renti' 6. ln view ol the above-mentioned def,nition of "allottee" as well as all the te.ms and conditioDs of the buyert aS.eement executed between promoter and complainant, it is crystal clear that the complainantareallotteeIs) as the subject unit was alloced to them by the promoter.

The concept of investor is not defined or referred to in the Act.

As per tbe delin,t,on g,ven u.der section Z of the Act, there wiu be'promote,'' a.d "allottee" and there cannot be a party having a status of "investor".

Thus, the contention of the promoter that the allottee beins investor are not eDtitled to protection of this Act also stands F.ll weather the complainrnt! can llatm d€layed possesslon charges aft€r execution of conveyance deed.

17. deed.

17.

It hrs been contcnded by the resPondent that on execution ofconvevance deed, the relationshD between both the parties'stands concluded and no.ight or liabilities.an be asscrted by thc respondent or the complaina.t against the othcr Theretore, the complainants are estopped tiom claiming anv interest 'n thc facts and circumstances ofthe case.

1u. l'he authority has already taken a view in in CRl4 031/zol9 and others tiled os Varun Cupta V/s Emaar MGF Ldnd Limlte.l and others and observed that the exccution ofa conveyance deed does not conclude the relationship or marks an .nd to the labilitics and obligations of the promoter towards the subject unit and upon takinB possession, and/or executing coDveyance dced, lhe conrplainaDl never Save up hrs statdory right to seek delaved posscssion charges as per the provisions ofthe said AcL 19.

After cons,deration ofall the facts and circumstances, the authorjty even after execution of the conveyaDce deed, the complainant/allotlee 9HARERA S- crnrcnnl,l preclu.led hom his right to scek delay possessron charges respoDdent/promoter. holds that ComplaintNo.

5329of 2022 r HARERA Complarnt No, 5329 of 2022 P GURUGRA[4 r.lll Whetherthe complaintis barred bylimitation orrot?

20.

So lar as the issue of Umitation is conce.ned the Authority is cognizant of the view that the law ol limitatjon does not stnctly apply to the Real Estatc Regulation rDd Devclopmcnt Act ol2016.llowever, the Authority under section 38 of rhe Act of 2016, is to be gurded by the principle ol natu.al Justice.

It is a universally accepted maxim and the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their ri8hts .Therefore, to avoid opportunistic and frivolous litigation a reasonable period of time needs to be rnlved at for a litigant to agitate his right.

This Authority ,s of the view that thrce years is a .easonable tim. period lor a litigant to initiate litigation to press his .ights under nornral circumstaDccs. umstaDccs.

Howcver this shall not apply to th. provisjons of section 14 wlrere speciric p.riod has already been def,ned 21.

ItisalsoobservedthatthcHon'bleSupremeCourlinitsorderdatedl0.0l 2022 in MA NO.21 of 2022 oiSuo MotoWrit Petition Civil No.3 of2020 have held that the period hom 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for purpose of li )LtatroD as Draybc prescribed under any general or special laws in respe.t of alljudicial or quasr ludicial proceedings.

22. h CR/5329/2022 rhe cause of action arose on 19.07.2019 when the olfer of possession was made by the respondent to the complainant.

The complsinant has filcd the present complaint on 09.0{J.2022 which is 3 years and 21 days irom the date olcausc of action. ln the present malter the thrcc year period ol delay in flling ol ihe .ase also after takinE into account the exclusion period fiom t5.03.2020 ta 28.02.2022 ivould iall on 10.02.2024.

In view of the above, the Arthority is ol the view that the present complaint hns been filed within .r reasonable pcriod oldelay aDd is not bar.ed by lim'tation 23 tt CR/5447/2022 the cause of action arose on 19.07.2019 when the otfer of possession was made by the respondent to the complainants.

The complainants &FARER comp,a.nrNo.5r2eo,o2_ ftD (L)-L)- L 4lt j,rort ] have filed the prescnt complaint on 09.08.2022 which is 3 years and 21 days iiom the date of cause olaction. ln the present matter the three year period of del.ry in filing ofthe case aho alter taking into account the exclusion period from 15 O3-202A ro 2A 02-2022 would lall oD 10.02 2024.

In view ol the above the Authority is ol the view that ihe present complaint has been filed within a reasonable period of delay and is not barred by limitation. lind'n8s oD rhc rclclrou8ht br rhc romplainJnL\. c.l Directthe respondetrtto pay ilterestatth€ rate oflaqD ona.count of delayin olfering possession oD theamount p.id by the . d by the .ohplaina nt as sale consideration ofth€ said flat from the drte ol payment tillthe date ol delivery of possession, lhc complainant intends to continue with lhe project and is seeking delay posscssion charges as p.ovided under the proviso to section 18(l)olthe Act Sec.

L8{ 1l proviso rcads as undcr: section fi: .

Return ol amount and compensotion 18(t) llthe plohoterloih b.oJnplete at n tnable to qirc pas*ssion afon npotb ent, pl.t, or buil.lrna, (;.

24 I'rowten thot Nhere dn ollattce daes not nnenl Lo tltthd..w Jra ttle rolec. he shall be ponl, b! the protnoter,ihE@stldeverynanthaJdclay, ttlltlte handns oret al the posse$ion, otsuch rotc os nal be presLribed.' 25 As per clause 14 of the apartment buyer's agreement provides the time pe.iod olhandins over possession and the same is reproduced below: (i) Tine oI hdndins over olpos*snon subjed ta tems al ths ctoue ond bomns lbrce nojeure conditrcnt subtect to the Attattee hoving canplied with dll the tetus ond conditions of this Agreenent,and notbeihg in dejouk under ony olthe ptovitiohs olthis 1g ree me nt and conpl ia nce \| ith ol I ptovision s, fo.n d I nies, docunentotion etc., as preeribed b! ke Conpony, the conpal! proposes to hond ovet the poscsian af the unn wthi jLLIL|LNSB) ot I s!s44!kJJ,s!n/!!ietr- s u bJe ct ta t ne ly cam pl i a n 4 oI th e proisions otthe Agreenent by the Allottee. lhe Allottee ogtees and Lnderytonds that the conpant sholl be entitlerl ta o qruce penod ol s (livet nDrhs. for obptvina ond obtaittag th. .am^terion .ertilicobltulort eertificnt in ft$e.r al he Unit ond/or the Ptuj.d" ComplaintNo,5329of 2022 Cumpldrnt No 5l29 of Z0ZZ 26.

Admissibility of grace p€riodr The respondent/promoter has proposed to hand over the possession ofthe unit within a period of36 months from the date of start of construction and it is further provided in agreement that promoter shill be entitlcd to a gmce pcriod oi five months to. months to. applying and obtaining occupation certificate in respect ol said unit/project.

The const.uction comnrenced on 25.05.2013 as per statement of account dated 19.07.2022 l he penod of :J6 Dronths expired on 25.06.2016 and a grace period of 5 moDths lor .pplying aDd obtaining thc occuparion cerrifica!. in respect olthe complex.

Thc said Erace pcriod js allowed in terms of order datcd 08.05.2023 passed by the Ilon ble Appellate ltibunal ir, Appeol No.

433 ol2022 tilted as Emaar MGF Lomd Limited Vs Babia Tiwari ad Yogesh Tlwdri lvherein it has been held thrt ifthe allottec rlishcs to continue t{ith the prolect, hc accepts the ternrs ot thc agreemenl regrrding gracc pcriod ol three months for applying and obt.ining dr. occupation certificate.

27.'l'hrrefore,inviewoithcabovejudgenlentandconsideringtheprovisionsofthc Act, the authonty is of thc view thar, the promoter rs .ntitlcd to avail the gr.rcc period so provided in the agreement lor applying and obtaining the occupation cenificate.

Thus, the due date oa handing over of possession comes out to be 25.112016 28.

Admissibility of delay possession charaes at prescribed rate of interest: The conlplainant is seeking delay possessron charges at the prescribed rate of intcrcst on the anrount already paid by her.

Proviso to sectjon 18 provid.s that wh.rc an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shallbe paid, by the pronrotcr, interest for ev.ry nloDth of del.ry, trll the handing over ol possession, ai su.h rate as may be prescribed and it has been prescribed under Nl. ls ofthe rules.

Rule 15 has been reproduced as under: I HAII Complain!No.5329of 2022 ofrule 1S oftherules, has determined theprescribed rate of interest.

The .ate of interest so determjned by the legislature, is reasonable and if the said rule is followed toaward the interes! itNille[sure unilorm practicein all thecases. :10 Cons.quently, as per website ofthe State Bankollndia i.e. lndia i.e., nrarginal cost of lendiDg rate [in short, MCLR] as on date i.e.,28.01.202s 9.10%.

Accordinsly, the prescrLbed rate ol intcrcst ilill be marginal cost lending rate +20lo '.e.,11.10%. :11 lhc definition of term 'interesf as defined under section z(zal of the Act LIARERA GURUGRAIV Rule 15.

Prenibed rote oJlntest- lPrcvie to section 12, sectiq 7A M.l sub-se.tion (4) ond subvcrion (7) olvction 191 (1) Fo. the putpoe of ptoviso to section 12; sectian 18; and sub-s@tions (4) ahd [7) of secnon 19, the "interest ot the rote pretcribed" tha]l be the state Bank of lndio htphest oryinal cost of lehdihg rure +2%.: P.aviiled that ih coe the stare Bonk ol lndio norginol cost ol lending rote (itCLR) is not in Ly, it tholl be reploced b! tuch bachhdrk lending rctes which the stote Bonk oJ thdia nd! tN Fo tihe to tine Ior lending to the generol public. legislature in its w,sdom,n the subordinate legislario. underthe provision provides drat the rate o f interest rhargeable from the allottees by the pronroter, rn cis. of d.1ault, shall be equal to thc ratc ol interest whLch the promotcr shall br lable to pay the auottces, ir case ofdefault. il2 l hcrctbre, interest on the delay payments lrom the complainant shall be charged ar (he prescnbed rate i.e., 11.100/o by the respondent/p.omoter which is thc sanre as is being grnnted to thc complainant in case oi delayed possession :l:l otr consideration ofthe documents available on record and submissions made regarding contravention oiprovisions ofthe Act, the Authority is satisfied that thc respondent is in contraventioD of the section 11(4)(a) of the Act by not handing over possession by the due date as per the agreement.

By virtue ot clause 14(a) ofthe agreement, the possession olthe subiect apartmentwas to be deliv.red wthin 36 mo.ths lrom thedate ofstart ofconstruction and ltis further HARERA provided in agreement that promoter shall be entitled to a grace period oi five mo nths for applying and o btain ing complet,on certific n certificate /occupation certificate in respect of sard uDit/project.

As far as grace period is concerned, the same is allowed for the reasons quoted abovc.

Therefore, (he due date ofhanding over possessjon comes out to 25.11.2015. ln the present case, the complainant was oiiered possession by the respondent on 19.07.2019 atter oblaining occupation c.ftilicate dated 16.07.2019 from the competent Audrority.

The Authority is of dre considered view that ther. is dclay on the pnrt of the respondent to ofier physicalposscssion of the allolted unit to the complainant as per the terrns and corditjons ofth. buyer's agreement executed bctlveen the parties.

3,1.

Srction 19(10) of thc Act obligates the allottee to takc possession olthe suhje.t unit withi,r 2 months from the dat. of receipt ot occuprtlon certificate.

In the present complaint, the occupation certificate was granted by the competent authority on 16.0?.2019.

However, the respondent offered the possession ofthe unitirr question to th e cotnplainant on ly on 19.07.2019,so it can be said that thc corlplain3nl canre to know about th. occupatiorr certificate only upon thc datc olofler of possession.

Thc.efore, in the interest olnaturaljustice, he should be Biyen 2 monthJ time from the date of offer of possession.

Thes€ 2 monlhs' of rcasonable time is being given to the complainant keeping in mind that even after intimation ofpossession practically he has to arrange a lot oflogistics and requisite documcnts including but not limited to inspection of the completelv finished unit but thjs is subiect to that the unit being handed overat the time oi taking posscssion is in habitable condition. lt is furthcr clarified that the delav possessiotr charges shall be payrble from the due datc ol possession i..

25.11.2016 till thc expiry ot 2 months lrom thc date ol offer of possessron C.nFlajnt No.

5329 o12022 I r9 07.2019) whrch .omes out to be 19.09.20I9.

9.09.20I9.

I&HARERA S-eunuenAvr ComplaintNo,5329of 2022 3s Accordingly, the non-compliance oithe mandate contai.ed in sectiod 11(4)[a) read with section 18(1) olthe Act on the part of the respondent is established.

As such the complainant ls ent,tled to delay possession charges at prescribed rale of the interest @ 11.10% p.a. w.e.f.

25.11.2016 lill 19.09.2019 as per provisions oi section 18(1) oi the Act read w,th rule 15 of the rules.

The respondent shall also adjust the amount already paid to the complainant lnwrrds the deldy rn hdnd,ne over ot po\\c\.ron.

G,ll Direct the respondent to return Rs.1,12,576l- unreasoDably cha.ged by the respondent by increasirg sale price alter execudon of buyer's agreemert between the respotrdent and the complalnant G,llt Dire.ttheresponderttoretumtheamountof Rs,4,95,000/-forreducethe size ofCentral Creens froh a a.res to 1.22 acr.s.

G.lv Dlrect the respondent to return 13,30,000/- in pretext of llat not faclng joggeN park and for reducing the size of,ogAer's park to. creating opetr parking.

G,V Direct the respondert to return ertlre amount paid as GST tax by the complalnant we.l 01.07.2 or7 till 24.O7.2019. c.vl Direct the complalDant's bank to rcmove the llen marked over FD of Rs.z,23,669l- in favour of the respondena on the p.et€xtof future payment of HVAT for the pcriod of 01.04.2014 to 30.06.2017 aod also dhect the respondent to assistthe prccess ofremovlnglien from th€ comPlainant's bank by providine NOc for the same. c.vll Direct the respondent to pay an amount df Rs.55,000/'to the complainants as cost of the present litigation, 36.

The above-mentioned reliefs sought by thd complainanl are bei.g taken togetheras the findnrgs in one reliel will definitely affect the result ofthe oth.r reliefs.

Thus, the same being interconnected.

37.

The counsel ior the complainant submitted that the resPondentdid not provide drc ioqeers track even after takins huge PLC charges in the name of joggers' irack. rs' irack. 'lhe co m plete view oijogger's park is restricted by the staircase oftowcr 26 and the respondent has also reduced the size ofjogger's park by creating an exira open parking space in theproject.

HARERA ComplaintNo.

5329 of 2022 38.

On the other hand, the respondent submitted that the p.ojed has been constructed strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plans.

Furthermore, structural changes, if any, in the project have been carried out strlctly in accordance with the provision oflaw.

The quantum of PLC is a mafter olrecord.

Further, preferential location of the unit is not exclusive to the ocular aspect thereof.

As per clause 1.2te)(il oi the buyer's asreement, the following provisions have been made rega.ding PLC: ''1.2[e) Prelercnriot Locorion Cha,get [i) TheprapoiionabanountoJtheptelerentiotto.aoan.harsesIPLc)Iar.eltarl unitt in rh.

P.oje.t wht.h tnte. dlo tuould b? thorged f.r Centtdl C.een: Iar Rs.1,95,044/,)aggers Patk Focine,lor Rs.3,30,040 / , Thnd Flaatlar Rt32,540/ ond rlthe Attottee opL\ lot on! such uhiL the PLc Jor the \one \hotl be inLh.tetl in the Tatot cansiderotion poyobte by ae Attattee as set out in clause 12[a)(i) obare lat the sod Unit 1'he Allattee unde6tonds thot I due to chonge ih lotoutptoh,the tocaaon oJoh!

Unit wherher prcIerchdully locoted ot otherwise ts .hanged ta ont othet prcIetehnol locadan, Nhere tht PLC ot. highet thdn the rute os nentianed hereinabare, then in such ocosethe Allattee shall be hoble ta par the PLC as per the rcvtpd PLC deciaed br the Cohponr withtn rhtdy [30] dars alany sueh .onnunicotion rcc.lved by.h.

Allot ee in this.egord HaweveL ildue ta the . h a n ge t n the loyou t pl an th e Un i t reos6 to be prelerento I l!

I ocoted, theh i n sut h an event the canpord shall be liabte to refuhd onty the onauntaJPLc pdid by the Attottee wthnul.n! hrerest ond/or eanpensation and/atdandses and/a. .a$s al a ! notute whoLsaevet ond such rcfu nd \hatt be atttu\t lt th the Io awh.Q innollnentfor the Unt.

39. e Unt.

39.

Moreover, the counsel for the respondent vide proceeding dated 28.01.2025, brought to the notice oiihe Authority with regard to PLC charges, LC Mr.

Sumit Nain and Neeraj were appointed to visit the site and submit a lact f'nding rcporton the issue ofcomplainant's unit bei ng preierentially located.

The repo.t ol the LC was received on 11.01.2024 and the relevant portion 's reproduced ror ready reference:- j1 the Centrol Creeh vte\| in the ProJectisnatvstble rratnthe c.n.toinohr unita\ Lhe sone is obstrl.ka by thc ca muntbJ butltlihg ahd wo\hroans canntuied on th. padtun for sMndlng poat Therelarc, the catnplainont unit tt nat prcfercntiull! located lot.entnlgrcen facins lorwhrh PLC hos been chotged b! the pratnater B. t'he lasler Park is pa iolt!visihie lann the canplainontunit.

Thetelare, the cohploinant unit is prelcrentiollr lacoted fat joqqer pork lo.ing fatwhnh PLC hu!been.hatqed bt rhc prcnatt.

9HARE S-eunue Complainr No.

5329 of2022 The counsel ior the respondent iu.ther stated that the conveyance deed in the both the complanrts has alreadybeen executed. on perusal of document and submissions made by both the parties the Authority observes thatthe definition ofthe term deed'needs tobeunderstood in order to understand the extent of the relationship between an allottee and promoter.

A deed is a written documentor an ,nstrumen t that is sealed, signed and delivered by all the parties to the contract (buyer and seller). lt,s a contractual document that includes legally valid terms and is enforceable in a court of law.

Ii is mandatory that a deed should be 'n writing and both the partiesinvolved mustsignthedocumentThus,aconveyancedeed isessentially one wherein the seller transfers all .ights to legrlly o!vn, keep and enioy a particular asset, immovirble or movable.

In ihis case, the assets under considcration are immovable property.

On signing a conveyance deed, the origjnal owner transfers a)l legal rights over the property i. roperty i. question to the buycr, asainst a valid considerahon lusually monetary].

Thererore, a 'conveyancc de.d'or'sa1e deed'implies that the seller signs a document stanng that all autho.ity and ownership of thc property in question has bcen transferred to the buyer.

Fronr thc above, it is clear that on execution ofa sale/conveyance deed, only the tltle and interest in the said immovable property (herein the allotted uni0 is transfcrred.

The relationship between both the partieJ stands concluded and no right o. liability can be asserted by the respondent or the complainant In the abovc mentioned relel sought by the complainant, thc Authority observes lhat the tinancial liabilities between the allottee and the promoter conre to an end after the execution of the conveyance dced accept for the [/ R, RA 40 +1.

42. *HARERA S-eunLnnlu ConplaintNo.

5329 of 2022 statutory rights under the Act o4 2016.

The complainant could have asked for the claim before the conveyance deed got executed between the parties.

43.

I\.1oreover, the counselfo.the respo ndent d uring proceedingdated 28.01 2025, brought to ihe notice olthe Auihority that the conveyance deed in the present matter, already executed on 13.01.2020.

As per clause l3 oithe conveyance deed dated 13.01.2020, is also relev.nt and reDroduced hereunder for readv 13 lhat the octLal, phlsi.al, vacont posssion al the soid Aportnent hos been handed arer ta the vendee ond the vendee herefu conlm3 tukins .vet posestoh ol the soil ,lptitnent/potkitls \pace(, Jrcnt the v do8 olter sattsbins htnvll/h{e|l thot the tar ttctlan os dha rhelo aus tnnollotions like ete.tnf.onu *ut vntor! lttnlt\, utet ond \eweroge a''nedtanetc huw beehnadeohd ptoqtl.d lrc.otuanewith tl)c dtu*tngs,.l.egns and spe.ilicationsosogrceaond oren)goad ader and c.ndthnonLl thlt the vendee is Ju r etisfed in this regaft! ond hos no. nd hos no.onPtoi,t or ctain nt respect ol the sred ol the said aPorhen4 ony itn ofvofk" natefial, quatitr oJ ||ork, irstottotion, conpensotion Jor deloy, iJ ant, with ftspect to the soid Aport ena etc., thttein.

44. 'l'herefore, alter execution ol the conveyance deed the complainant-allottee canDot seek any reiund ofcharges otherthan stn tutory benefits iiany pending.

Once the conveyance deed is executed and accounts hnve been settled, no claims remains. 'lhe Authority has alreadytaken a view jn case bearing no.6507 ol 2022 title os Mrs. sunmda Shivpuri V/s M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited decided on 10.12.2021, has also dismissed the reliel sought with regard to refuDd of any charscs other than statutory benefits if any pending.'l'hat the linancralliabilities between theallottee and the promotercome to an end after the execLrtron ofihe conveyance deed except for the statutory rights under the Act of 2016.

So, no directions in this regard c:n be cfectuatcd at this stdge H.

Directionsof the Authority 45.

Hence, the Authority hereby passes this o.derand issues the following directions undcr scchon 37 of the Act to ensurc compliance ol obligations cast upon the promotcr.s perthe iunctlon entrustcd to the authoi ity undersechon 34(0 HARERA GI]RUGRA[/ Haryana Real Dared: 2a 01 202S ComplaintNo.

5329 of 2022 The respo.dent/promoter is directed to payinterest at the prescribed rate i.e., 11.100/o per annum for every month ofdelay on the amount paid by the complainant(s) from the due date of possession till the date ot offer oi possessionplustwomonthsorthedateof handingoverwhichever,searlier as per proviso to section 18(11 oftheAct read with rule 1S ofthe rules.

The arrears ol interest accrued so far shallbe paid to the complainantw,thin 90 days from the date oithis order as per rule 16(2) ofthe rules. the rules.

Also, the amount otcompensationalready paid by the respondent towards compensation ior delay in handlng over possession shall be adiusted towards the delay possession char6es to be paid bytherespondentin terms ofproviso to sect'on 18(1) of the Act. iii.

The respondent shall nor charge anlthing f.om the complainants which is not the part olthe buyer's agreement.

46.

This dccision shallmutatis mutandis npply to cases mentioned in para 3 ofthis order wherein details of due date of possession, of,ler ol possession, total sale consideration, amount paid by the complai.ant and execution of conveyance d'.J r\ n,.rr.un-,1 in Fa, h ofthF(omplainF 47. complnlnt as wellas applications, ifany, stand disposed ofaccordingly.

48.

Files be consigned to registry. (viiay umar Goyal) (Arun Kunar) Chairman Estate Regulatory Author,ty, Gurugram [Ashok S (