DEEPAK BATRA vs BRIGHT BUILDTECH PVT. LTD.

*HARER^ S-crrnrcnar,t BEFORE THE BI'II,IJI:R il*;;,uN.r4s;r,or;l HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Dare ofde.ision: - 16.05.2{125 Bright Buildtcch Priv.te Limited s.

I cR/746/2021 cR/762/2021 llcor)rk ll.rtra V5 llleht BurLdlech P.ivate Limrtcd & ACE Mcga Structures Private Limited & Orris lnlrastru.tures Deepak Batra VS B.ight Buildte.h Pnvaie l.imned & ACE MeSa Stru.tures Pivate Limited & Orns lnfiastru.tu.es Deepak B.tra VS Bflsht Bulldrcch Pflvate LLmited & ACE Me8.

St.uctu.es Pnvate LimLted & orris nfrasructures (Respond€ntlor R1& R2l IRespondent forRl & R2) [Respondentfor R1& R2] Deepak Batra VS Bright Buildtech Private Limit€d & ACE Mega Structures Pnvate Lrmited & Otrs lnfrasructures (Respondent lor R1 & R2) Adv.

Ninn HarshJarn (Respondent for R1 & R2) Deepak Batra VS Briaht Buildrcch Pnvare l,imired & ACE Mesa Structures Privat€ Limited & 0rris lnfrastructures cR/77)/2423 2 R,q RAIU ARE JRUG *l -e-e ComolaintNo.

745oI2023 cR/797 /202 J rl cR/4q06/2021 Deepak Batra Vs Bridt Buildt€ch Private Limted & ACE Mega Structures Private l,imi!.d & 0r s lnfrastructures Deepak 8.{rr VS llright Buildte.h Pr'vate l.rmited & ACE Mcga Structures Pnvate L mrted & Orft lDlia$rucrurcs Lleepak Batra VS Brigh!

Buildie.h Pflvare l.!mitcd & A(lE Mega Structures Private L nnted & 0rfs lntianrucrures Deepak Batra VS sright Builatc.h Pnv*e l.'diterl & / Ac[ Mesa slructures Prvate I (Rspondent for Rr & R2) IRespondent for R1 & R2] (Respondent for R1 & R2l [Rspondent ror R1& R2) cR/369A /2023 CORAMI ShriAshok Sanglvan LLmrted & 0rns lnlianructu.€s ORDER 1.

The order shall dispose ofi all the complaints titled as above ffled before this authority under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulahon and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") read with rule 28oathe Haryana Real Estate [Regulat,on and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter reterred as "the rules"). e rules").

Since the core issues emanating lrom them are similar in nature and the complainant(sl in iSHARER #.eunrcnml Complain!No.

745of 2021 the above referred marrers are allottees of the proiects, ,.Woodview Residencies" at sector 89 and 90, Curugram being developed by the same respondent promorer i.c.

Bright Build tech private Ljmited.The terms and conditions otthe buitder buyer,s agreements tharhad been executed between the parties irte. s? are also simitar.

The fulcrum of the issue involved in all these cases pertains to fajlure on the part of the respondent/promoter not to handover the physical possession as per the terms otthe builder buy€r,s agreement, seeking reiund atong The details ofthe complaints, reply status, unit no., date otallotment letter, date of agreement, due date of possession, offer of possession and reliefsoughtare giveo in rherable b€low: cmlletion ccd,llcate/occupaiioo c€rtinc c not recctv€d rilt date.

2 sr. conplai Unlt/.hop 5.

Possessron of Dwelll4g Unit 5t\tb.e to- 1t p .o"!-",ttol ot .T au,t t.

A Bb. \ ., "n,^ .n" O*"ttrnS i_r " si.uobd withh 36 nonths wkh o srae petiod oJ 6 nmrhs lron *" aot" o1 i,iu,,n oJ Alotmqt Letter,prc de.tthotolta aurtdue and pdrableblihp a,y.,nr, *", p,ia to tnl" conpon! in dn?t! nonner rhe conpony \hol be antled ro ;eotuhoik $kNnn of tine Jor the posesion oJ the Dwelhns unt in the dent ol on, defouk or neslise,ce otribio e ihe Eulefs luqthent oJ erns & condihons ol this AsreenenL \' conptai Untr/rhop ] D.t.or ]ou"a"t. ror.r,ae no.and ' .r..uri ' of @mid.rn conprai unr/rtrop ] u..o ]o*a",i -"r.r,a" trr no.and ' .r..uri ' of @mid.r.! p.ldby r{o./D.r onot poss.sst .of builde. on .o rptJin! fih's/ buyefs nt/ orrer R€ply asreem of st tc l *t I lposesror I 15.03.20 23 c81 UCF I complaintNo.745oI202l ffHARER^ * ounuennl,r ft 0,+.09.20 Rs zo r..za.+:tazlrt:sttu 2023 1503.20 23 17.7120 2X 94.61.r2l. a2,51364/ 2023 I s"-"d I lDoF,.

14ls sq ft. | 115.03.'0 ] +3,ssq.

I n* | tera.e/b | | r7. /b | | r7.r I 20 6em€n! " ]l:':l I I 1740!0 ft I I zrqzo'o.

I ya.d I Ll 1 lt. lcerrezt I rl,'.

1 I I zoir s""o,a I fl@r I I Dof I r.lssq.n_ I | | 15.0320 I .3rs3q.

I I lrn,- rtcrruc/u I l?.il20 | &meno I )23 Tobr i ttt l740sq. t i 239.20so ll *.a 1 rr I t I /.

1,1223,25 1.e,, n 1 ll.,16l02 I ll 04.19 /. e/ 2023 HARERl GURUGRAI/ Complarnt No.

745 of 2023 15.03.20 23 c167 19.04 2 9A,52526/ 45,04,44',t/ 23 23 /?023 3110.20 23 23 /2023 3.

The facts ot att oi the above-menrio ned the complainan(s)/altotteets) case, th e parricu lars of tead case CR/745/2023 riied as Deepak Batm vs Bright Buildtech private Limited & ACE Mega Structures private Limited & Orris lnfrastructures private Llmired are being taken into considerarion for determining the rights otthe altottee(sJ.

4. ftmnenr S Gulucn;r.r f-r1.,T1 --_l l (terace/basemenrl 'l'otalarea= 2498 sq. fr.

59 o12013 dated | 5_07 _2021 Orris Land & Housing pvr.

Lrd. and 42 c81-UCF (pase no.24 admeasuring 1415 sq. ir. consideration, the amount pajd by hand ing over the possession, detay the tollowing rabular form: Unit and proiect related detafls The particulars olunit details. sale the complajnants, dare otproposed period, ifany, have been detailed jn Detnits ofthe projecr "Woodview Residencies,, and 90, Curgaon, Haryana I":-,"^-.,,.,-...^, ' Resid6ntial Plottcd Colony I14.506 acres 06.10.2020 34 ol 2020 issued 15-07 _2023 Fully Furnished Ftoo Unit No DTCP License no 16.07.2013 vaiid upto 1083 ofcomplarntJ ,1 _!q€e no.

24 ofcomptaino 04.03_20 (pase no 17 .21 19.04.20 (Pase no t7 .22 10 l:'*'"1: 11. i possession Dwelling 5 fi HARERI GURUGRAIV tr.I subj"ctiata,siji; ) the Buyer making mely pon "i*, tt " Conpa ny shol I en deavor to conplete the constructian ol the Buildins Btack in |9hich the Dwelting unit is sltuated t4ithin 36 months witha grace period ol6 nonths fron the dateolissuance ol Allohent Letter provid;d fiat a omountt due and poyoble bt, the Ruver hos been patd ta e Conponv in tiietv nonnet The Compon! shotl be ennt tl be enntted to teasonoble extenson al time for the possession of rhe Dwe ing Unit m the event of onr delault ar neslsence otnibutoble the Buyer-s fufi nent of tems & conditians ol this Agreenent 14 12 Due date of possession lural 04.09.2020 (calculated from the date of alotmenr I.etter including grace p€riod of 6 months as jt is unqualified) Amount paid by the Rs.1,26,1\,762/ (as pe. paynrent plaD conrplaintl Rs- 1,22,94,407 / . (as pcr BBA on pdge no.

26 of E Completion Not obtajned certjiicate/Occupaiion +ert'nca(e l6 Offer or possc5srun B, 5.

Facts ofthe comptaint The complainants have pteaded rhecomplainto. rhe foltowingfacts; i.

Thar rhe respondent no. t had entered into an agreement dated 18.05.2013 with respondent oo.3 to acquire devetopment right of t:.

THARER $- cllRLnnnrr C.mplaint No 745 of2023 50%rnaparcelof tindadmca rirg101.081 acressrtuated jnrhe revenue esrare of vilage ltayatpur, tehsil Curugram and village Badha, falling under secror 89 90 under rhe master plan of Gurugram, demarcated for the purpose of construcnon and developmentofa residentiat p tofted colony.

The DTCp has sranted license ro devctop and construcr rhc satd piotred cotonv vide license No.59 of20t3 dated 16.07.201i. l hat the .epresentarjves of rhe respondent no.

1 and 3ch company, sometimes in 2015. met the conrptainant, spokc very high on the reputation oirhe comp.rnyand promised the delivery ofthe proiecr on tinre and also handed over a brochure whrch contained atl the iacilities and fearures ofrhe proj€ct.

That as per Sec Z(zkl of the Real Estate [Regularion and Developmentl Ad, 2016, the Respondenr falls under rhe caregory of 'l)ronroie/ and ,s bound by rhe duties and obtigations mentioned in thesaid acr and rs under rhe l€ rrirorial lurisdiction of this regularory aurhorjtv.

Thnr in pursuanr to the elaborarc advertisemen6, assurances, reprcsentations, a.d promises made by respondent no 1 and 3 in the brochure circulared by rhem about the rimety completion ofa p. ion ofa p.emium projecrwith impeccable fa.itities and betieving the same to be correctand true, rhe comptainant considered booking a fully lin,shed dwelllng untr.

That vide an altotmsnt leu.r dared 04.03.2017, the respondents, allotted thc dwelling unir no C - Bt UGF having an approxrmate Super Area adnreasunng l,4 l 5 Sq tt. on cround Floor, along with tsascnrent/Tcrracc reaoll.0rJ3sq.t,i (ApproxlonplorNo.C-81, admeasuring 239.20 sq. yard (plor Arca) situated at ,Woodview *s HARERA GI]RUGRAI\4 Residences, Secror {19 & 90, Curugram The rotal sale consideratjon of rh. booked unir was Rs.

01,26,41,762.13/-.

That the builder- buycr agrccnrenr d.rred I9.04.2017 was execured between the .cspondenr no.l and the comptainant where rhe respond€nt no.

1 assigned alt therightsand benefits in rhenameof the complainant.

That according to the clause 4.2 of the builder buyer agreemcnr, rhe comptainant has paid a sum of Rs.

01,22,94,407 /- to\yards the booking amount of the dwelling unir prior to cxecution of rhe agreement rnd had further agreed to pay the balance considcration in rhe trme bound mann.r. 'l hatlu.theras p!rrhc ctluse S.t,,oirheburlde.-buyeragreemenr, the respondenr no. t pronlised thatthe unit woutd be.eadywlhin 36 moDths plus 6 nronrhs of grace period, frorn th. dare of the allotment, the dateotallotmentin rhis caseis 04.03.2017. rhusas per this clause, rh. comptainant had to ger the possessron oi the tunit on or befo.e 04.03.2020 That it is perrinent to menrion thar ar rhe time when the complainanrwas hoping rhcwork to beconrptercd, rhercspondenr no.l gor to know from its sourccs rhar the respondenr no.3 has been appoinred as the',devetopnrent manager', tor development, construcrion, salcs. and DrdrkctiDg ofrhe snjd projecr and ro detiver the apartments to the atloftees otrhe pro,ect.

It was atso reveated that the respondent no.1 h.rs been taken over by the respondenr no. ondenr no.

3 and the project name had been changed after rhe change in the management oithe company and rhe new project was under the name of "ACIt Patm ttoors and thar rhe p.oject willtake more tinre to.onrplcrc fronr tt)c darc otrhc registration wrth RERA.

The Complaint No.

745 of 2023 vii viii HARER GURUGRAI\I complainant was in shock airer this news and the arbikarv acrs of l hat a bare p.rusatoiclausc 4 and parricula yclause4.9ofthe builder buyer agre.menr would show rhar the builder bLryer ag.eement was so one sided nnd in non-comptian.e to the model builder buyer aSrecment aDd the oblective or the real estate reSulatory acr 2016 rhar (hc respond.nts bave detailed onty abour the consequences of and only when the buye. wilt rermi.ate the agreement or if iails to comply wirh rhe terms oithe agreement or the payment plan whereas jr,s nowhere menhons any remedy available to the atto$ee in case ot .on -perfo.mance on the part of That, the respondenrs are not only guitty ofdeficiency in services by not lulfilling their promjses in due course oi their services towards rhej. helploss corrsunrers but also for nrenral harassment to the complatnant by rnisgu,djng and misrepresentarion facts, which ciea.ly tantamounts to fraudulenr and unfair trade That the respondents have miserabty taited to keep pace wjth the development ofthe project as rhe consrrudion otthe same since the date olstaft ofcxcavaljon has been going on at snait,s pace and the said projecr evcn tilt dare is tar irom comptetion and rhe rcspondenrs h.rve n)iscrJbty lirted ro handover possessron wirhrn the stipulared rime.

Ir rs abundantty clear that rhe.espondents havc played Laud upon rhe conrptainant by undulyenriching itself with his hard earne. money, wjth no response wharsoever therealter and has cheated the allortee traudulentlv and dishonestly w,th fahe promises. *HARER d[ eunucnnv xii. 'l'hat rhe comptainanr hcrern ts consrrained and left with no oprion buftoca.celrheallotmenrof rhesaidunrtr.e. idunrtr.e.unitno.C-81-UCF having an approxjmare super area admeasuring 1415 sq. ft. on ground floor, along wjth basement/terrace area or 1083 sq. ft. on plot no.

C-81, admeasuring 239.20 sq.yard lplotarea) sjtuated at "woodview residencel,, Sc.tor g9 & 90, Gurusram.

I,u.rhe.. the comptarnanl js sccking.ud orritled io tLr refrDd ofrhedeposited amounrs inctuding but not Iinrited toalt rhe payments made in Iieu ofrhe said untt/flat, rs per rhc ternrs and condirrons ofthe builder buyeragreemenrexccrired by the.espondeDts and even orherwise are .nritled ro thc samc aloDg wirh appljcabl. rnterest in re.ms of the real esrate (regulatjon and devetopmentl acr, 2016 and irs appl,cabte rules. further, the complainant herein reserves hjs rishr[s) ro add/ snpplement/ amend/ chanse/ alter any submission(sl nradr hcrein rr rhe complaint anil further reserve the righrto produ€e addirionat documenrt, or submissions. as and wh.n necessary or directed by rhis hon,bte rr,bunat a.d to rake up jts clainr torconrpensanon befo.e rhe adludication offi.er xrii.

It rs submifted rhat rhc nghr of the alo$ee to se.k refund atong with inrerest and compensation has become absolute in rerms oa the law Iaid down by the Hon,ble supreme court when like in rhe presentcase rhe respondents have faiied to offerpossession oithe sajd unjts within the st.ict timetires prescribed in the builder buyer agreenrent That thc presenr co rptatnr sers out th. va.ious deficiencies in serviccs. unfair and/or rcstricrive t.ade pracrices adopted by rhe rcspond.r)rs..l.hc nrodus op.randi adopred by rhe respondents, from rhe respondenrs poinr otview may be unique , ComDlaintNo.

745of 202: I C, 6 D, 7.

HARERT.

GURUGRAI\I and innovnrive but lon rho rlottec s point otvrew, the strategies used roachicve irsobjectiv.. rnvariahtybsars the irrefuta ble stamp of rmpuniry and tor.rl Iack oi nccounrabrtiry nnd transparency, as well as breach ofcont.act an. nt.act an.l duping of the altottees by raking his hard-e:rrned noney w(h no rntcnrion ro off.r possession within stiputate rjme.

That, the complainant further declares th.rt the matter regarding which rhiscomptaint has been made is not acrivety pend ing befo re any court oilaw or any orher aLrthonry or any other tribunal.

Reliefsought by thc comptainant: 'lhe complainanr has sought rhe f{ owing .ctiets: i.

Dj.ect the respondcnrs ro reiund rhe enrire amount pajd by the complau.rnr wirh intcrest as per RIR,^ ^cl.

Reply by the respondents no.

1& Z.

The.espondenrs have conrested the complainr on rhe foltowing That the presenr complaint has been nted without any cause of actron, sincc rhc c.rrticr comptainr on simitar sct of facrs and grounds has already been dismissed by this aurhority vide orde. dated 31.08 2022 passod in comptarnr no.

5187 of 2019 ritted as ''Deepak Batravs Brighr Buitdtech p!t.

Ltd &Ors., Itis.espectfu y subn)irtcd rhat thc prescnt Comptaint is hit by pnncrple of,res- judicata' and is therefore nor maintainabte.

The other reasons fo. which rhe presenr comptianr is not malntainable is that the complajnanr hasapproached rhis autho.iB, with unclean hinds by nor disctosrng abour dismissat of the previous conrplaint which i!.rs fited on the sinritar ser of facrs. grounds, and cause olactron. t.hus, on thrs ground of conceatment HAl]ER GURI]GRA[/ olmarerial iacr itseti, rhe present complaint under reply is liable to be dismissed wirh costs.

Admittedty, rhe complainanr he.ein took no curativestepstoeitherseekre call orsettingasideof rheorder whereby the earliercomptaintwas dismissed by this authority The RespondcnrNo.

I (B.ighr lluitdtech pvr l,rd.lis developingrhe prole.t ndnrcly Woodview Rcstrlenccs,0row kDown as.ACE palm floors"l on rts sha.t iD rhc prolc(r land nredsunns 101.0g1 acres situated at revenue est.te of viltage Hayatpur, Sedor,89 and 90.

Curugram (herei.alier retered to as.sajd project,).

It is pertinent to menrion rhar the Respondenr No. ondenr No.1 has appornted the Respondent No.

2 (NIls.

Ace MeCa Srrucrures privare Limired ['Ace"] as'Developmenr Manager, for developmen! constructjon, sales and marketinS otihc projecl yi.le .Dcvetopment 14anagement Agreemenr' dated 23 0S.2019 only wirh the obiective of ensuring cxpe.litrous devctopnrcnr of rhe project and ro p.ovrde Drofp ondllv proirr rent , usrompr , nr. rnrerdrrron The .ole and responsibiliry of rcryondenr no z rs restricted to manag,ngand supeNising the construction and development ofthe said project and ro ensure rim€ly compietjon.

The starus ot respondent no.

2 is purety that of a service provider who shalt receive a fee as consideration for p.oviding p.oject managemenr .rnd developnreni scrviccs to rhc.espondenr no.

1.

Upon subnlssion otrhe rpptrc.uion lbrnr for altotment of the Unit. the Complainanr was aIorred flat No.

C 81, Upper cround Floor at the basrc salc price ptus lit)C tDC ch.r.Bes ptus ctub members iee p]t]s intcrest fre. maintenance securiry tota ing to Rs.

1,26,4\,762.13/- lt is natellorthy ro mentron rhar rhe apart irom the application fo. atlorment of the abovementioned ,Unir,. rhe HARER UGRA[,I compla,nant also made separare'unlts'in the respondenr no.1, as such of the complainant in th herein has filed s€parate the present complajnt be adjudicat,on.

Deraits of t the complainanr herein a GUR applicarions tor altotmenr of ejght (8) sanle project bejng developed by the total nine (91 un irs were altoned in favour e said projed for which the complainant additionaleight[8) comp]aintsorherthan fore th,s autho.ity which are atso pending he all the pending comptainrs as fited by complrtnr No 745 of202l H H I omplnrnt Unir Jttorrcil Bright Auildtcch -l,r1 R ghr Buildtc.h 19.04.2A17 t9.44.2017 1904.2 cRN-745- 2023 CRN 746.

2023 cRN 748- 2023 ,BBA' c-31, ucF Bnght Buikltech lr*t^t It Brighl Buildtech Brjght Buildtech cRN-762, 2023 cRN-773.

202] cRN.79 2023 C 8I, SF c t\t lt) B.ight Buildtech Bri8ht Burldtech ,l-.167, SF Deep. , SF Deep.k Eatra vs, CRN.4906- Eri8ht Buildtech 2023 cRN.3698.

C 87.SF t9.04.2017 C.8.1,5F l 2 3 c- ( 55, UCF l9 04.2017 HARERA Con!iainr No.

745 of 2023 vi.

Ir rs perrin.nt to mennon riat at the tine oi submission olthe appticarion foraIornreIr, thc rerpon.]cnr no.t had senrprovisional allotment letter dared 04.03.2017 ro the complaint which containcd the derrrts of rhe pryrncnt plaD dnd the parrjculars of rhe nnit nllofted ro thc complaint in the sajd project It is pertinent to nention rha!.s perpaymcnr plan opred, rhe Comptainanrhad paid ar amoum ot 7,22,94,4A7.79l and accordingty, rhe Respondent No. t had issued paymenr acknowtedgmenr recerpt. r.hereatter, a bujlder buyer agreenrent was executed berween the complainant rnd the rcspondent oD 19.04 2017, as per which rhe possession ot the'dwelling unir,ro be given in terms ofctause 5.1 & 5.2 ofthe sa,d vii.

It is perrinent to nrennon h.re rhat rhe reasons fo. detay in project are sropp!8e oI coDstrucrron acnvitics in NCR region by the orders ot Court, non-ava,lability of construction materjal and labou., implenrenration of nationwide ,lockdown, to conrain rhe sp.ead of 'Covid-19', erc.

Moreover, alt these situarions and adve.se condirions is 'fo.ce maieure, cjrcumstance which is bevond rhe control olthe Answerjng Respondents. viii.

Due ro thc expoDentiat increas. in the cases ot Covid-I9,. rh.

CentralGovt. had imposed na rionwide ,tockdown, w.e .t.25 _03.202A whrch h.rs bccn cxrcnd(l tr| 30.0a) 2020, resultanrly, the same has caused serious impact on rhe economy posing difaicult chaltenges for eve.yone. tr is perrinent to mcouon thrt prjor, to rhis unp.ecedented siruation of pandenric ,Covrd_19,, rhe Respondent No.1 along with the devetopment manager had been carry,ng out the const.uctton ot the projecr at fu pace and was expecring to deliver thc Unrrs to thc lluyors bl the cnd otycar 2020. ycar 2020. however PaEe l5 ol31 THARER: S Gunuc,rri"r due to the sudd€n outbreak of the pandemic and closure of economic acriviries, rhe AnswerinB Respondents had to stop the construction wo.k during the ,lockdown,, as such, amid this difficult stuarion of,force majeure,the Respondent No.1 is not in a position ro adhere to the a.bitrary demands or the Complainanr for cancellation ot rh€ altorment and refund ot the monies atong with interestdue the reasons mentioned hereinabov.

Other than rhe above reasons, tho delay jn handing over rhe possession otthe Dweltjng Unjt/ apartmenthas been caused due ro various reasons which werc beyond the cootrol otrhe Answerjng Respondenrs.

Fotlowiog important aspects are retevant which are subm,$ed for rhe kird consideration ofrhis Authorilyj tbllowrng various problenr which are Respondeni No I senousty allecrcd rhc I-ack olnd.qualc ynrrccs oi hnancel Shortage ollabou.; Rising rnanpower and materjal costsj Approvals and procedurai diffi culties The addition to the atoresaid cha enges rhe fotlow,ng tactors also played rnajor role in dejaying the otfer ofpossession; There was ext.eme shortl8c otwarer in rhe.egron which affected theconstrucrion works: Therc was sho agc ot blcks dno ro restrictioDs jmposed by N{inisrry of Environmen r and Foreston bricks k,ln: *HARER' &Gunucnmr Unexpectcd suddcn dcctararion ot .lenxrnetizatjon poticy by the Central Covernment, altected the construction works oa the Rospondcnr in ,r scnous way tor nuny months.

Non avajlabiljry of cash-in hand affeded the avaitabjljry oftabours: Recession in economy also resuked nr avajtabiliry ol labour an.l raw materiats becoming scarce, The.e was shortage of tabour due ro implemenration of socjat schemes likc Narionat Iturat ltmployncnr Cuarrntee Act [NRECA) and latraharlal Nehru Urban Renewal l\4ission (JNNURM); Direftion by rhe Ilon bte Narionat Grcen Trjbunat& EDvironmental authorities to stop the construction acriviries tor some time on regular inrervals to reduce a o reduce ajr pollurion iD NCk region.

That in vrew ofrhe above facts and ctrcumsrances the demands of the Compiainant for reiund of the amount along rvjth exorbitanr compen$tion is basetess and rhe same cannot be a owed under any situation as it will jeopardise rh. situarion ofthe whole project.

It is rcsp.cllLrlly sublnirted ihnt if such prayers .re attowed, rhe same will materjalty aatect the consrruction wo.ks ar sire, which wiil affect rhe interesrs of alt the orhcr allottees who have booked flats ln thc said proiect.

It is retevant ro point out herein rhar at present theAnswcring Respondents is tocusj.g on the completion and delivery of rhe sajd project.

The monies .ecerved tiom rhe allottees have been utiltzed in the construction acnvity and thus there is no Jusrification in thedemand tor reiund.

It 's roite.at(,d tttar thc construcrion rr site u,as nevcr stopped and hence, there is no basis ot such allcgario.s, as ma{je in the Complaint.

It is subnitrcil that whcnev$ rhc construcnon activty has stopped at rhe projecr sitc, ir js du. to the above-said reaso.s *dt HARER GURUGRAI\I ol iorce maleu.e,which are beyond rhe cont.ol otthe Answering Respo|dents, rherelore, rhe demands ot the Complainant shall not be enrerta,nod Ir is sUbmrtted herein rhat the Answerjng Respondents are attenrpting ro make bost elforrs to compjete the construcnon works rnd to givc posscsston of the ,Unit, to the alloftees as soon irs posrjblc xii.

The demand ot rhe Conrptainanr to demand exorbirant amounr in the form of compensation is baseless and jeopardise the whole project.

Itis submitted thatif there rs any detayin haDdingoverthe possessioni the delay compensation shall be given to the Conl .rinanr in the nranner provido.t in the Buyer Agreement under Clause 5.10 ot rhe Buyer ASrcenrent. ll is .eire.ared he.ein that rhcre is no lll.errio,roj dct.ry at presenr and hence, rhe concern ofthe complainanr is unwarranted and premature at this srage. xiii. age. xiii.

It is noreworthy ro mennon thar rhe projecr ofrhe Respondent No.1 is almosr nearing the stage of conrptetion.

It is submitted that Respondenr No.1 has Iaunched 420 numbers ofjndependent floors ro be constructed on 140 ptors. out ofrhe 258 floors / unirs were sold by the Company ri date xiv.

Ir is submrtted thlr the insrant ConrDlaint is nor maintajn.ble keeping,n view thetacts, cir-cu msrances and taw retaring thereto_ It is lurrhersubmitred rharthc Complarnanthas tailed to produce any evidence or sp.,ciic irve Dcnls worrh its sirh ro prove rts claims.

IUoreover, the.e is no quanrjiication of ctaims as soughr for by rhe Complninant underprayc.

Ctause. thc.etore, rhe jnstant Comptajnt is liableto be dismissed atthe threshol.l.

E.

Reply by the respondent no.3.

8.

Therespondenthascontest.dtheconrplainron rhefo owrnggrounds: ComDlaintNo.

745of 2021 HARER i. l hat ir is reiterarcd that the rsue so.aised tn this complajnt are not only basetess bur also demonstrares an arempt ro arm tuist the answering respondent into succumbjng ro the pressure so created by the complainant in filing this comptaint before this Forum and seeking the relicts whjch thc comptainant rs not enrirled to as againsr the a nswering .es po nden t, ie Respondent No.3. ii.

That as per the documents aDnexed by lhe complajnant, he was allo(ed a ptor bearing plot no.

C81JCF, Cround Ftoor. admeasLr.ing roritnrc. of249S sq yards (heretn.efe..ed to as the 'unir') in the proiect'Ace palm Floors,(herein referred to as rhe 'Project'J whichwaserstwhiteknown as,Woodview Residencies,. iii.

Thar it is pertinent b rore rhat as per rhe records/ documents annexed by the comptainant, the Buyers A8reement was executed only berween the respondent no.

1 and rhe comptainanr dated 19.04.2017 wherein the sjgnarorics ro rhc said Agreement are atso lhe re\pondnnr no I ano rne (omptdinrDt. iv.

That il is pe.trnenl to note rhat rhe anss. rhe anss.ering respondenr has no knowledge oiany documenr ever being executed or any payment made by the complainant or any altorment ever made jn rhe name of the complajnant since the compjainant js the customer of the Respondent No. l and 2 and the answering respondent is completely unaware abour rhe derailr/ transactions berween the conrplainnnt and thc respondcnt nos I and 2. v.

That rheretore, it rs perrjncnt to nore at this stage that it is a self- admitted fjcr by the conrptairanr rhar rhe complajnant had ,nvested in a p.oject which is in the Dame of Ace palm Floors launched by rhc rcspondcnr no I, tor whtch rhe Respondent No.

2 HARER GI]RUGl?AN,l viii was appointed as rhe,Dovetopnrcnr rr.lanager, tor development, construction, sales and marketing ofthe said p.oject.

That it is submitted rh.tr rhc comptainanr has been unable ro establish o. proof any krnd ot relationship ro exist berween the complainantand the RespondentNo.3 and the co mptainan s just arm twisting the facts to drag the answering respondent into the present frivolous litigat jon.

Thatwhen the posscssion was not dctive.cd, the comptainant has iiled lhc prescnt f!tse, fabricated rn.i frivolous compla,nt a8ainsr theAnswering Respondent, ie, Respondent No.3 in ordertoharass the respond.nt no.3 despite acknowlcdgiDg and admifting rhat the compla,nant had booked rhe unir jn question with the Respondent No.

1, Respondent No.

2 and Lorus Cr.ens fwho has not been made party ro the present complaint.

That through the definition oa,?l/or,ed,,as enshrined under secrjon 2 [d) ofthe RealEstate (Regulation& Developmenr) Acr 2016, it is crystal clcar thatthe comptairant js not the alottcc rn relationship with the respondent no.3 as neither rhe unir in quesrjon was allottcd by.cspondent no.3, nor the respondent no.3 executed any Buyers Agreenrenr or anv other docurncnr, no. the respondent no.

3 accepted thc payuent, ilany, made by the complainanr towards the unit in question. question.

That in the present case in hand, rhe Respondent No.

1 and Respondent No.2 are the promot€r in question who has issued the various docunrents on record such as thc Buyers Aereemen! the Allotment Letters, Demand Letrers, paymenrReceipts dueto which the complainant ialis in rhc caregory ot rhc bejngan:rlto&eeand the present casc does not invotvc Respondent No.

3 anvwhere. *HARER S-ounuenm,l That it is submited rhat ar rhe inception when the project 'Woodview Residencies, was launched, th€ respondent no.

3 in collaboration wirh the llespond.nr No. l wherein borh the Respondenr No 3 and I had .qual dcvelopmental rights equivalent to 500/o. tt is noreworthy rhat after rhc inception ol REM,when rhe R[ RA .cgisrr.l ion hcc.rnrc mandatorv, rhe Respondenr No ] gorits projecr area regislered und.r rhe |anre and sryle ot ,Ace path Irloors', ie the project in quesrion, bearing RtjpG registration no.

RERA GRC-PROI-3US-20r9.

It is furrher submirted that the said lact can be verifted from the dcnrand ]e$ers and the RERA registrarion certificar. which bears rhe same account deraits otrhe respondenr no.

I 'th.t fLrfther, the RespondentNo.3 gotits project registered wirh RtiPv\ in the nanre and sryle ot ,Woodview Residencies'and also obrained RERA Registrrtion Certiflcate for the sanre bearing no.

RIiRA-(;Rc-pROl-640-2020 Thus, it is clcar tfom thc above thar the conrptnjnant 6 nejther the customer of rhe answering respoDdent, ie, Respondent No.

3 nor the complainanr has madeanypayment to rhe respondenr no.3 nor any commuoicarion, Agreement has been exchanged between rhe complnjnant and thc rcspondenr no 3 ilhich coutd implyrhat the Respondcnt No.

3 holds any liab ity or accountabilw towa.ds thp That lronr rhc r.rcrs as narrrr.d abovc, the presenr Compjaint rs liablc rodrsnl\scd o rtre,r.count otn)js-loinderof parties wherein the respondenr no 3 has been wrongly impteaded as the parry ro the present complaint and the comptai. e comptai.ant is not enrjded to anv reliels as claimed herein by thisAuthority.

T.

10 12 1l HARER, GURUGRAIY] Copies of, all the docum€nrs hat authenticiry is not rn dispute.

I the basis oftheses undisputed lurisdictlon of the aurhortty The Authority observed thar ir jurisdiction to adjudicarc rhe p Compllrnt No.

745 of 2O2l ve been filed Hence, the c and placed on record.Their omplaint can be decided on ,alas weu as subjed maner la,nt tor rhe reasons grven F.l, T€rri toria t jurisdi c!on As per notiiication no. |/92/ZOt7-ttCp dared 14.12.2017 issued by Town and Country I,lanning Deparrmenr, the jurjsdictionotReat Estate Regulatory Authoriry, curugram sha be enrire Curugram Distrjct for all purpose wirh offices situared in curugram.

In the prese.r case, rhe project in question is siruared wirhin the planning area of Curusram District, therelore rhis authoriry has complete rerritoriat jurisdiction to dealwrth rhe presenr comptirinr.

F.ll.

Subiect ma$e. iuitsdictiotr Sectjon 11(4)(a) of the Act, 2016 provides thar the promorer shall be responsible ro rhe allotree ns per agreement for sate. sechon 11(alta) is reproduccd as hereunderl 'ii) rt ",,o.**,nar t"t bf ,e,oar td !a, otl 'bhaot,un\ .p\ot 4!ht4... o10 lt4 t,on\ dtd.t t|. n.-t.,aa- , / ttld,ctttot.ul\ nade '1. -d...t-, ,_" "",.".-, rl _ur" -ao. o\\ottunh a|dlbtLe.\,d\ nk t \. nay bc, tilltheconvewh.eataltthp n,q b, to t4\ ottd,tae, ot the cannon u s t. the Bsooothn nf olto ees ot the .ampetent altho/ity, ostheLa* 'n0), bc: So, in vrer! olthc provisiorrs ol rhc Acr quoted abovc, rhe Authority has complete jurlsdiction to d..rde the comptaint regarding non compljance ofoblgations by the promoter leaving aside compensation 13 HARERA GURUGRAI/ which is to be decided by rhe adjudicarrng oiircer ii pursued by the compl:inanrs at a larer stage.

14.

Further, the Aurhority has no hrtch rn procecding wth rhe complai.r and ro gr<rnt I roli.l or relund in th. und in th. prescnt nratrer in view of the judgemenr passed by the rro n'hte Apex Court in Newtech promote,I and Developers private Limited ys State ol U.p_ and Ors. (supro) and relterated in case oJ M/s Sana Reattors private Limited & other Vs Union of tndia & others slp [Cjvil] No.

1300s of 2020 decided on 12.05.2022wherein ir has been taid down as under: "36 t.ranr thc tdt!ne alLh.

A.r ifwhtdt t dcLaitett tele.en.e has beeh r1uJ. a1J ta-t.., ,,r.t,1 tt__,, da\1tnt,a wrh t\t . _\J tttud..ara, at:,.4 ,tr.,aL.

Lr ,ut. ttot , 1.\, ho1 1..

I r.1 t r,ot"_-,1\ .,t. ,"tdad 1nt*en , penolt!. ond to lpensottun , . ontont teudns ol sedi;ns i ond 1e.learty nanile,ts Lhot when t.anes ta 14und olihe onauna ond tnteren an the telr t on.unt, .r dnc.Lns polhent .l ntcre$ fot dao.t- r"hved al t ..p -aa ot ppn)\ and n@, .t t\rta,4. , thp reuuto,a^ ruthdlr ^hn\ho Lhpo et b?tt1npo4dr4arn,rcthe aLL uqpotu anolatlt Atth, oietne anprr.unqt,,odu..norol \delrn t4. tdpt ar idtrdp.nu onpet \a .n r\d,4_,.. t tit,eon unde; se.ra4.t- 14. t B oad t 9. hp adtud ot,ag otl_.4 ^ l,\,tiJ 4a,th? oawet todzt-t. n. t"pptr!) t?\t." the,atle,L lc,poJ.no at \b, on-1 reod inh s.rttu) 72 rlthe ild ifthc utjuniotrD untler Sc/dohs j2, jt, ltl ontl t9 att)ct thtn con)pah\utan os e v\t!)ed, t extended ta the attiud(oonlt ollicet os prayed thoa h ooview,no! ntend toexpand the onbn un.l ,.npe al the pawets und lrdtos olthc adtutr hg ollcer rndet sc.to.

7 1 urt Lhat karltt bt qan\L the nw)dutc at the A.t 2016, 15.

Hence, in view ot rhc authoritative pronouncement oi the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the cases mcntioncd above, the Authority has the jurisdicrion to ente.tain a comptainr seeking refund ofrhe amounr and interest on rhe relund amoDnr G.

Findings on the obiecrions raised by the responderts: C.l.

Objection regardirg force maicure cond ions a.mDlJ'nr No -4s of2O23 a.mDlJrnr No.74q or 2O23 *HARER lS-GunLnn,u,r 16. nn,u,r 16.

The respondent/promoters have raised the contention that the coNtruction of the tower in which the unit oi the complainant is situated, has been detayed due to torce majeure circumsrances such as delay on part of rhc developer M/s.

Acs Mega Srructures privare Limited,shortageof labour, implemenration otvarioussocialschemes by Government of tndia, damonetisatjon, lockdown due ro covid.19 various orders passed by NGt, weather condjtions in Curugram and non-payment oainstatmcnt by difierenr altonees ofthe proiect.

But aI the pleas advanced jn this regard are devoid or merjL The plea advanced rhat the devetoper has faited to handover the possession of pro,ecton time as per,development management agreement, entered between them on dated 23.0S.2019.

It is observed rhe plea advanced cannot be taken as the comptajnant was neve. a party ro said contract and thus, there was no privily of contract.

Iu rth er, the respondent has taken a plea rhat there was a delay in construction ofthe project on account of NCT orders, ordcrs by EpCA, orders by Hon,bte Supreme Courtotlndia etc butdid not particutarlyspecify forwhich period such orders has been made operatjve.

The events such as Hon,bleSupreme Court oftndia to c.urb pollution in NCR, various orders passed by NGT, EPCA were for a shorter durauon of time.

Thus, the promoter- respondenr cannor be given any lenienry on based of aforesaid reasons and plea taken by respondent is devoid otmentl 17.

The respondenrs atso took a plea rhat the construcrion at rhe projecr site was delayed due to covid-19 outbreak. in the instant complaint,the due date of handing over of possession comes out to be 04.09.2020 and grace period of6 months on account offorce majeure has atready been grantedin thisregard ard rhus, noperiod overand above grace penod of6 months can begjven to rhe respondents-bu,lders. *HARER S-Gunuennnr G.ll.

Objection wtt regard ro mis tc*;,N,,",4s*zo;l joinder of respondent no.

3 tn the 18. tn the 18.

Whtle tjtiDg the cornpiarnr th. comptain.rDr sought reiiet againsr M/s Orn\ tnrJd,rju.rJ-p pri\Jrc t.rn|led rro Ur gnr lurtorecn erivate Ljmited be'ng the devclopcrs of the protecr.

On taiture to iuliil their Ijabiliry to complere the project by rhe due date, rhe comptajnant approached the authoriry seeking reliefoirefund rhe amount received agaust rhe altofte(l unir. tr ts n.l drspured thar rIe allornrent ofthe unt infavourotthecolnphrnrnrwasmadebyUrcrespondentno.1 andrhe buyer's agreement wjth regard to the a|orred unit was executed berwecn thc conrplainant nnd r.spondenr no I J,ven after a otment and buyer's agreemenr denrands for various paymenrs were raised :gainsr the a orted unjt by respondent no.

I only.

Thus, it shows that there is no pr,vity of conrract between respondent no.

3 and the complainanr and as such the plea otthe respondent no.

3 is vat,d and thas, woutd be justified to detet. his nam. from ar.ay ol pa.ty.

H.

Findings on the.etiefsought by rh€ complainaht.

H.l Direct the respondents ro refirhd the entireamounrpaid bythe complainant with interest as per RIRA Acr.

19. ln the p.esent complaiDr, the comptainant rnronds to withd.aw trom the project and are seeking refund ol the amount paid by them in respect ot subject unit atong with inre.cst.

Sec.

18[1) ot the Act i. reproduced belorv for ready reiercnce: 'Sc.tion ta. - Rpturn ot amnunt ont rotupco\uttoa '.i,.1-....",.,:-" . : opo ntetn ptor arburt\ltng t.)n t ,u.o,., n.._ tt.,-- t.,/-., .t t,.__,t" ,t ttrtt1., t )r tr. ._ t\,,.nv, ot t .t1.ol nLpcn\on at .enttoah.l th. rcnBtttfit oth.t n\1\h tnder thi, act arfa. ahy PJBe25or31 fdt HARERA GURUGRA[,1 he shalt be tiobte on deman.! to the a ottee, n .ae the d ottee wishq 'a itt\ota^ rnn t\ tt.rLo,. t. o,/.thct rcn,dr o\atto L to t?turn the d ount re\ened b, hin in re\pctt ot thot opartnen. prot, buitdins, us tte case noy te, witt intirest oi iiJ rat" ot nay bc pte{ribed _t," ".p,."t_."_;; nonqrt a\ at. qrt a\ at. lrt,t,lr tht rt Pnvrrlet nrat whet! ua u t\tc. toa\ rot nLlNl La wthtl.uw /ian the ii'"'l!: !:"'o' ''" -a".' '. .\'\pt na' or lteto' d' na, F, pl-\'lbPll 20.

Clause 5 oirhe 8BA dared 19 04.2017 provid.s tor rhe handing over ot possession and is rep.od!rced betow torthe rcrerence: "5.

POSSESSION OF DWELLINE UNIT 5.1 " The conpuny shdlt endeuvarr ta canbletc thp uL.h.o "tr k.n t. ., ta(.t"lht_ I ur1,. -it ,rt_,,J wnhm.J6 monthr with thc grotr period oJ h !six) mohths lrotn thc datc ol ^luonc?

A otment Lp er 1,,_ ,,d.d thottllunountsdretnd paloble h! the uryer hosbe;n pu ta the cotnpan! in Lintel! nnn,Er.

Tie caDpuh! sttal be ehntted to raenahte extcnsion oJ Line lbr the lossesson ol the Dwcthrlt Unn ) Lht ctp t al unr t.ldult ot neltlienrc rtt 4 Lt\d tr'haBL|Lt.tL tIt., Ltat e,rt.E tl4r_4..1thr 21.

Admissibility ofgrace period: t.he promoter has proposed to hand over the possession of rhe apartment wfthin a pe.iod of 36 months with the grace period oi 6 (sjxl months irom rhe date of issuance allotnrcnr lctr.r'Ih. pe.iod ot36 monthsexpired on 04.03.2020.

Since in the presenr mrucr rhe l ircorporales unquaiified reason for grace period /exrended period of 6 nonrhs in the possession ctause accordingly lh., grncc pcrio.l o, 6 months rs rllowed ro rhe promoter beiog unqurliited. -t hcrelbrc, the due dar. otpossession comes out to be 04.09.2020 22.

Admisslbilty of retund along with prescribed rate of interesl The complainanr is seeking refund the amount paid by italongwith interest presc.ibed rate ot inrer.sr.

IIos,evcr, th. r olrec intends !o wrthdraw from rhe prolccr Jnd rs \eekiDS retund ol rhe amounr pJid by him in page 26 ot37 *HARER S GunLrcu,., respect ofthe subjecr unrr wirtr interesr ar prescribed rare as provjded under rute 15 ofthe rutes.

Rule 15 has been reproduced as underl Rute ts. preyribe.r,ub ot nterest. lprotiso to sp.tion 12, vction Ia on.! sub.vction ( 4t ond b\",tion 1)1o1,.tn"" n1 tt) tat thapd,oo.r. -p.a\ r.o.t,t,F t. r.t_.

F t. r.t_.1 ta old\ub ptua4, {4) ond (7) olsecLion j9 the jnteretL rt the rcte preytibed- shoi b; t\, \tJrkiat ot nd.a,.1a.,\1o,o, I o,tatt,ar,as.vtp,,n ..

1\ t o .i rot4ot o_t ol ":!.:::*, ! ,. " '.. ,a ,. ,",. u , p.n.", o1 .u"r -,,,- -. -,".,'*, i' 1,", tnnc n) odt tt, hrttrU b tt.4lnetut NhtL 23.

The le8rslarure iD irs wisdonr jn the suboriinare tegislarion under the p.ovision olrute I5 or rhe rutes, has deternlned rhe prescribed rare of interest.

The rate oi interesr so determined by the legislature, is reasonable and ifrhe sard ruie is folowed to award the interest. it will ensure uniform practice in atlthecases.

24.

Consequentty, as per websit. of rhe Strte lJank ot lndia i.e., httpsr//sbi.co.in, the nrarginatcostoftending rate (in sho.t, MCLR) as on dare i .., 16.05.2025 is 9.10%.

Accordrngly, the p.cscribed rare of interest wtll be margiral cost oalending rate +2% ie., 11.10%.

25.

The derinirion ot ternr ,r nteresr, as detined under section 2(za) otrhe Act provides that the rate of interest chargeable from rhe a onee by the promoter, in case ot defautt shall be equal to rhe rate of,nterest which the promotershaltbe Uable to pay the allonee, in case ofdefautt.

The relevanr section js nrp.o.iuced belotr,: tl:),,?, ,,.,__",. .h. ptol4rat or rle aoulI n\I|\ t1nl\ ht t,ptunuu t.at Lh:t na,D,trj th6.tru\ h) th? tdt, at.nt,,.4,\at ru._ -.-o t\\ 11\r, q i. ot tqotrt ,n_o erJ oa,a\ ht l .,,tt _p. : _ rn,a._ rj. h,\_ p,o_".,thath; trtbttl,)pr\ tn, nlttit r)ttl trt 14 Lh t,i ) t he rt q \ ! dt) )br a) t ar tu oro, d t o t \ rtto. kp ro br I t vq t hp dot p . . d ta, o t -.,_, ^, J\\ t t.t _i\., ot ttt t1p dat, the ohaunL ar pa th.tpaland |ttercn thetean lr.efuntled, dntl the nterpn ITHARERl ..,flb- Gunlen;.r.r o,onb,n b. try J\ r., tJ,to"fiun,thor"t"ta"otoiee ito . p.,t .tP. tl t .tr..,-. - F,t.a 25.

In the presenr casc, rhc conrptainrnt booked. nt booked.r ull[ wjth the respondcrrts rn jrs projc( r 'Woodview llesiilences,, now known as,,ACE Palm tloors" sitnared in Sector-89 and 90, Curugram, Haryana.

The complainant was altottcd a unit bea.ing no.

C81-UGF, admeasuring 2498 sq. ft. vide allotmcnt lerter dated 04.03.2017 and subsequentty, builder buyer agreemlnt s,as cxecured between the parties on 19.04.2017.

As po posscssion clause 5.i ol buyer,s agreemenr wh,ch states rhat the coDrprny shall endeavour ro conpt.te the consrruction of the buildjng btock in whrctr rhe ds,ctliIB unir is siruared within 36 months wirh thc grirce period ot 6 [six] months from the date of issuance.llotment Letter.

The A otment terrer wrs issued on 04.03.2017, rherefore dIe date comes our to be 04.09.2020.

27.

It is perrinent to mention over here that even aater a passage oimore than 5 years neither rhc occupation ceruficare has been obtained by the competent authorit). nor the offer oipossessioD otrhe a orted unir has been nradc to rhc allotree by rhc respondenr/promoter.

The Authoriry is oi the vie$ rhat rhe allortee cannot be expected ro wair e.dlessly for txkrng posscssron ot!he unil which js allotred to them rnd for which rhey have pai.ta considerabteamount ofmoney rowards the sale consideranon.

Funher, rhe Aurhoriry observes rhat the.e is no document ptaced on.ccord irom whjch it can be ascerrained that whether the respondenrs have appljed tor occupation certiticate/parr occupation certificate or what is the srntus ot const.uction of the project 1n vi.w oI rhe .rbovc mcn!oncd racts thc a ottee inrends ro withdraw t.om ihe p.ojocr and dre weti wirhin rhe righr to do the same in view ol sc(rion t {t(l ) oJ rhe Acr, 2016 (:un plrrnr Nu.

745 orZ023 HARER GURUGRA]\4 28.

Moreover, the occupation cerriaicate/complerion cerrificate of the project where rhe unit rs siruated has sri nor been obtained by the respondents /promoicr .t. omoicr .t.hc authority is of the view thar rhe allortee cannot be expccled to wait endiessly ior rakrrg possession of the allofted unitand forwht.h he has pard a consirrerable amounttowards the salc considerrrion .ird as observed by rjon.bte Supreme Court oi lndia i treo Grace Reoltech pvt.

Ltd.

Vs_ Abhishek Khanna & O,1,,, civit appeat no.

57BS ol 2019, tle.ided on 71.01.2021. ". _ The a.cupoLon.er!lcate i, noc ovailobl. o nou,s n ae1 oucy "1 *ruri il;;i;.;,::i',:;::,,i:: ::;:! :::::i, .,nd,.r,t, h @ t4,., \ l olth? oponh.t t J.a,,?,It. th,a nar .,,,"; r. r,t _ _t r,!.

I,lt,_,t)..1_, t 29.

The tloDbic Suprcnre Court of ln.lia in rh. cases ol Newtech Promoters and Develorcrs prtvate Limiaed Vs State of U.p. an.t Ots. (supra) reiterated in ese ol M/s Sana Reattors privdte Limited & other ys Unio,t ol rndia & others SLp (Civ ) No.

1:i0os of 2020 decided on 12.05.2022. obse.ved as under: . zs The unquohfrd nsht ol the altattec ta seek .efund reknen Under .f . t :Jn t.t.

1 t, u I +,J s4 iu t au I or t h' t t .. "", deDpatt, o" ;;) lPd thr tq q ,a"na ". a"_"", . i" n,,.t. t.t i ra, alr _.. tt., tu4t t o tt ",_1o| q r h- p not.. etl\ t u q^ e thp ao.,pr..a t"!"ta.p.. ot r"1.,._.."i*r,", ":, ""?, " (-L,.n"brart .\\t1, h. kt aoJ aor rtt,__,. \it_ 1,..t t_ taa,t .. rda an n-n \,,1 |l\1, f, lhe lek ttctrtb..t hy n\ ttutc Corernhpnt trdudqt co,"p"rrrr,"; ;, ii; -t,._.....1. .. t1r.to.a4,_ radae\ .n \ at.

L\. ut t, t,. t r-._|at 4 e.l lar the Nriod ot delay tjl handma ovct pos*seon ot the rute ptes.nbed. r0 The promorpr r,.e.p.,srbt" ror.rjt ootrSdlrons. re,pon\rDrljtre\, rnd tu.ctions unde. rhe provisions ot rhe Act or 2016, o. the rules and .egulations made thercrDde. or ro rhe altoriees as per agreement for I #HARER 9E Gunuenanr unable to give agreement for Accordingly, th ion 11(al(a).

The promotcr has faited to complete or is possessjon otrhe unit in accordance wirh the terms of sale or July compteted by rhe dare specified lherern. d lherern. e promoter is liabte to pay the allottee, as he wish to the project, without prejudice to any orher remedy turn thc amount reccived in respect of rhe unit with rate as Dray be prescrjbed.

31.

Accordingly, rhe non,cornplirnce otrh. nrand!r. conrained in section 11(41(al reid wrrh s(.1o. t8(tl ot rhe Acr o. rhc pa.t of the respondents no.

I and 2 a.. estabtished As such, the complainanr is entirled to retund of thc entjre amounr pajd by him ar the prescribed rare ol interest j.e., @ 11.10% p.a. (the Srate Bank of r ndia hjghesr ma.ginal cost or lendirs rate IMCLR] applicabt€ as on date +20,61 as prescribcd undcr rule t 5 ot the Harynn!

Iical Esr.rre IRegularion and DevclopmentJ ltutes,2!

I7 irom rhed.tL,oteach payn)ent ti theactuat dateol.efund oirhearnount within rhe timelines provrded in rule 16 of the Ilaryrna Rutcs 2017 ibjd.

I.

Directions ofthe aurhoriry 32.

Hence, rhe Aurhorjty hrrebypasses thjs order and issues rhe tbltowing directjons under section 37 ot the Ad ro e.sure compliance of obligations casted upon rhe promoteras perthe tunctionsenrrustedto the authority undc. seclLon 34(tl otthe Acr: i.

The respondents no.

1 and 2 are directed ro refund the ahount of Rs.1,22,94,407 /- pajd by the comptainant atong wirh prescribed rate ofinterest @ 11.1091, p.a. as prescribed under section 18 (l) ofthe Act,2016 read with nile 15 ofthe rules from thedateofeach paymenr till the date otrealizarion. * db ii iti.

35.

File be consigned to registry.

33.

34 stands disposed off (rvtemberl Authoriry.

Curugr"am Dated:16.05.2025 HARERJ GURUGRAI\I Aperiod of90 days js given to rhe with the directions given in this order and failing which legal consequences would foltow.

1 and 2 are furrher directed not to create any third-party rights againsrthesubject unit befor€ full realization ofthe paid-upamountalongwithinterestthereontothecomptainantsand even iC any transfer is in,riared with respecr to subject unt, rhe receivables shall be first uritized for tized for ctearing dues of comptainants- This decision shattmutaris murandisapplyro cas€s menrionedinpara 2 ofthis orderwherein derails of paid-up amount is mentioned in each of Complaints as well as applications, it any, accordingly. rompla'nl No.749 ur 2O2l respundenrs no.

I and 2 tocomply