MEENAKSHI KALRA AND KUL BHUSHAN KALRA vs VATIKA LTD

ffHARERA ffieunuennH,t BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGU GURUGRAM Complaint no.: Date of filing: Order Reserve Order prono 1.

Meenakshi Kalra 2.

Kulbhushan Kalra Both R/o:- H.

No.

562/7, Subhash Nagar, Opp.

Lord Jes Public School, Gurgaon.

Versus M/s Vatika Limited Regd, Office at:- Vatika Triangle,4th floor, Sushant Lok- 1, Block-A, Mehrauli- Gurgaon Road, Gurugram- 12 2 002.

CORAM: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Arora APPEARANCE: Shri Manoj Bhardwaj (Advocate) Ms.

Ankur Berry (Advocate) ORDER 1.

This complaint has been filed by the complainant/all of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, read with Rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regul Rules, 2017 (in short, the RulesJ for violation of S wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter all obligations, responsibilities and functions under th the Rules and regulations made thereunder or to t agreement for sale executed inferse. plaint No.

8045 of 2022 TORYAUTHORITY, n: ed on: 8O45 of 2O22 tL.ot.2023 oz.oB.zo24 09.0a.2024 Complainants Respondent Member Complainants Respondent ees under Section 31 016 (in short, the Act) jon and Development] on 11(aJ(a) of the Act ll be responsible for provision of the Act or e allottees as per the Page 1of 16 * HARERA ffieunuennH,r A.

Unit and proiect related details.

2.

The particulars of unit details, sale consideration, complainants, date of proposed handing over the pos any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: e amount paid by the ession, delay period, if arehousing Private tendT letter on page no.

35 I plaint No.

8045 of 2022 Particulars Name and location ofthe project "Vatika Turnin Express City at 888, Gurugram.

Point" by Vatika lage Harsaru, Sector- Project area Nature of Project 18.80 Acrcs Residential [Gro p Housing) DTCP license no. and validity status Valid upto 25.10 26.1,0.201,3 Name of Licensee M/s Vaibhav Limited & 9 oth Rera registered/ not registered and validity status 213 of 2017 da Valid upto 15.03. pto 15.03. (Promoter has deregistration of [Note* ln 04.07.2024, \r recorded as Laps ls.09.2017 025 de an application for e project) roceedings dated was inadvertently d IDe-registered)] Unit No.

2402,Tower-W (as per allotmen ofcomplaint) Unit area admeasuring 1430 sq. ft. (as per allotmen ofcomplaint) Allotment Letter dated 1,2.07.201,7 (page no.

35 ofc mplaintJ Page 2 of 16 s.

N.

Details 1.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

B.

Facts ofl 3.

The cr 4.

That tl Clinic Invest develc Mahaj 2 and.

IARERA GURUGRAI/ Co nplaint No.

8045 of 2022 10.

Builder Buyer agreement Not executed 11.

Due date ofpossession 12.0t.2020 (calculated frr application form [As per Fortr and Ors, vs.

1 Ors. (12.03 MANU/SC/o25. m the date of I ,ne Infrast'ttcture 'revor D'Lima and .2078 SC); t/20781 L2.

Total sale consideration Rs.86,81,015/- I as per SOA on age no.

21 of reply) 13.

Amount paid by the complainants Rs.

5,61,,1,27 /- (as per SOA on p rge no.

21 of reply) 14.

Reminder for execution of BBA 12.06.201,8,78.0 [page no.

19-20 ( .2018 'reply) 15.

Notice for termination by respondent 19.06.2018 (page no.

24 of r ply) t6.

0ccupation certificate Not ohtained 77.

Offer ofpossession Not oflered of the complaint. le complainants have made the following submissic at that complainant no.

2 is the regular customer/i nic (an Investment Agency/broker) and he investe ,restor Clinic and a very faithful & reliable busir veloped between Investor Clinic and complainant n thajan from the office of INVESTOR CLINIC approar rnd demanded a fund of Rs.

10 Lakh for investmel ns in the complaint: - nvertor of one Invest I in many pro,ects wi ess relation had be r.

That one Mr.

Gag :hes to complainant r t purpose with "Vati Page 3 of 16 or ith en an 'lo. ka ffHARERA S- eunuennl,,l Ltd" for a period of 3 month only and assured that within 3 months as he is in a deadly need.

The compl wordings of said Mr.

Gagan Mahajan being an old kn cheque in the name ofVatika Ltd ofRs.

10 lakh to him 5. to him 5.

That after 4 months complainants got to know invested the said amount in the booking of the unit i namely, 'Tranquil Heights' .

Thereafter complainants paid the further amount of is 30,00,000/-.

Further the unit was shifted from 'Trz projects namely Seven Element and Tuming Point 25,00,000/- and 5,00,000/- was adjusted.

7. 'l'hat complainants were very shocking when h termination of units in proiect "Seven Element" da and dated 3.d September 2020 due to not paid a bal which was demanded illegally by respondent.

The terminated booking on unit in "Turning Point" proje dated 10 Avg,20L7 but when complainants approa told about the initiation of criminal proceeding agai Investors Clinic then respondent had withdrawn the B.

That respondent and investor clinic played a fraud wi hard earned money ofcomplainants by transferring another projects.

The complainants being a simple time trusts on respondents but respondents on e complainants.

The project of respondent no.1 is not time, moreover the "Turning Point" proiect of scraped and now the respondent is trying to develop at the this site.

C.

Relief sought by the complainants: plaint No.

8045 of 2022 e will return said fund nant no.

2 relied upon handover a signed (only for handy use). t Mr.

Gagan Maha,an proiect of respondent .

20,00,000/- total paid uil height' in the two and an amount of Rs. received notices for 04s December, 201.9 ce of Rs.28,41,073/- ondent had alreadv vide termination letter ed to respondent and st the respondent and id termination letter. complainants to grab nds from one project to d sober citizen every ery stage cheated the eveloping according to ndent No.1 has been lotted colony / project Page 4 of16 ffiHnLrnt ffi, euRuenRvr 9.

The complainants have sought following relief(sl: i.

Direct the respondents to refund the complainan which had been paid by the complainants to the V ii.

Direct the respondent to pay interest from the realization.

10. ation.

10.

On the date of hearing, the authority explained to the about the contraventions as alleged to have been Section 11(41 (aJ ofthe act to plead guilty or not to pl D.

Reply by the respondent.

11.

The respondent has contested the complaint on the fo 12.That the present complaint is not maintainable in present complaint raises several such issues which summary proceedings.

The said issues require extens! by both the parties and examination and cross- proper adjudication.

13.

That the complainants are not an "Allottee,, but Inv the apartment in question as a speculative investm rental income/profit from its resale.

The apartment booked by the complainants as a speculative purpose of self-use as their residence.

Therefore, no the complainants.

14.

That the complainants approached the Vatika Ltd, so through their real estate agent Investors Clinic In expressed interest in booking of a unit being dev known as "Tranquil Heights" situated in Sector g2A, G 15.That the complainants requested Vatika Ltd for tr received in lieu of their investments made in the proj into two different projects, namely "seven Elements,, Page 5 of 16 plaint No.

8045 of 2022 a.sum of Rs.

6,00,000/- tika Ltd. e of receiving till its respondent/ promoter mitted in relation to ad guilty. lowing grounds: or on facts.

The nnot be decided in e evidence to be led tion ofwitnesses for who has booked nt in order to earn question has been ent and not for the uity lies in favor of hat in year 2014 atech Pvt.

Ltd. and ped by Vatika Ltd rgaon, Haryana. nsfer of the funds Tranquil Heights, d "Turning Point". ffHARER. #, eunuennr,,l Coinplaint No.

8045 of 2022 16.

That the complainants booked the unit no.

HSG-026.lWest End-7-2402, in Vatika Turning Point admeasuring 1430 sq. ft. apprpx.(the "Unit,,l in the project of the respondent known under the name {nd style of "'l'urning Point" at sector 8BB, Gurugram, Haryana. , Haryana.

Prior [o the booking, the complainants conducted extensive and independent (nquiries with regard to the project, only after being fully satisfied on all agpects, that they took an independent and informed decision, uninfluenced in any manner by the Respondent to book the unit in question.

17.That the complainants consciously and willfully opled for a time linked payment plan for remittance of sale consideration fof the unit in question and further represented to the respondent that thpy shall remit every instalment on time as per the payment schedule annexed with the application form.

The respondent had no reason to slspect the bonafide of the complainants and proceeded to allot the unit in qliestion in his favor.

18.

That thereafter the respondent vide letter dated 02.02]2 0I7 sent two copies of the buyer's agreement to the complainants to sign the same and return the signed agreement to the complainants.

The resporldent again vide letter dated 01.08.2018 sent two copies of the buyer't agreement to the complainants to sign the same.

The respondent isgued reminder lcttcr dated 12.06.2018 and 18.07.2018 ro return ttl. ligr"a copies ro the respondent however, the complainants paid no he"d [o the letters and did not return the signed copies to the respondent.

19.

That, the sale consideration ofthe said unit is an amognt of Rs 86,81,01S/-, out of which the complainants have only made tthe payment of Rs.

5,61,127 /- only.

20, That the complainants lailed to comply with his obligation as is evident from the statement of account annexed herewith.

That upon the non- payment of the dues against the unit the respondent issued payment Page 6 of 16 ffHAI]ERA #*eunueRnHr reminder dated 04.10.2018 to the complainants h paid no head to the reminder issued by the responde 21.

That the respondent waited for more than a year fo execute the buyers's agreement and pay the outstan complainants did not come forward for the same. the same. therefore, constrained to issue the notice for termina and 03.09.2020 whereby it is specifically mentioned will not received with in 7 days then the respondent cancel the allotment of the said unit and thereafter left with no right, title, interest, charge or lien over th 22.That the respondent is entitled to deduct the ea amount paid by the complainants.

Moreover, the Resp to forfeit the statutory dues liked as held by the Hon Appellate Tribunal in Ravinder Pal Singh v Emaar No.255 of 20L9 allowed the forfeiture of earnest m statutory dues already deposited with the gove respondent is also entitled to deduct the statutory d amount to refunded after forfeiture.

23.

All other averments made in the complaint were de 24.

Copies of all the relevant documents have been record.

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence decided on the basis of these undisputed documents by the parties.

E.

Jurisdiction ofthe Authority: 25.

The authority observes that it has complete terri jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for th E.I Territorial f urisdiction: 26.

As per notification no.

1/92/2017-LTCP dated 14.1 and Country Planning Department, the iurisdiction o plaint No.

8045 of 2022 er, the complainants t. the complainants to g dues however, the e Respondent was on dated 04.12.2 019 at if the due amount all be constrained to e complainants shall said unit. money from the ndent is also entitled Haryana Real Estate GF land Ltd.

Appeal ney along with "the U'.

Accordingly, the es like GST from thc ied in toto. led and placed on the the complaint can be and submissions made ial and subject matter reasons given below. .2017 issued by Town Real Estate Regulatory PaEe 7 of 16 *HARER .. # eunuennr,,r Coinplaint No.

8045 of 2022 Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with offices situated in Gurugram.

In the present case, the project in question is situated within the planning area of Gurugram District.

District.

Therefore, this authority has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint.

E.ll Subiect-matter Jurisdictionr 2T.Section 11(al(al of the Act, 2016 provides thar the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for s4le.

Section 11(4)(a) is reproduced as hereunder: Section 11(4)(a) Be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities qnd functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules ond regulotions made thereunder or to the ollottees os per the agreement for sale, or to the associ|tion of ctllottees, as the cose may be, tilt the conveyonce of all the apartments, lots or buildings, as the cose may be, to the allottees, or the common areos to thq os\octotion ofollottees ar the cofipeLenL outhority, as the cose moy be; Sec ti o n 34- F unctions of the Authority: 344 of the Act provides to ensure complionce of the qbligations cost upon the ptomoters, the allottees ond the real estate ogents under this Act and the rules and reg ul o ti ons mode thereunder.

28.So, in view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, the authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regar{ing non-compliance of obligations by the promoter leaving aside comper{sation which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer if pursued by the [omplainants ar a larer stage.

29.

Further, the authority has no hitch in proceeding wilh the complaint and to grant a relief of refund in the present matter in view ff the ludgement passed by the [{on'ble Apex Court in Newtech Promoters afd Developers private Limited Vs State of U,P. and Ors, (Supro) ond reiterqrcd in case of M/s Sana Realtors Private I imited & other Vs Union of India $ others SLp (Civil) No.

13005 of 2020 decided on 12.05.2022wherein it {ras been laid down as under: Page B of 16 fTHARERA P*ounuenRHl "86. enRHl "86.

From the scheme ofthe Actofwhich a detq been mode qnd taking note ofpower of odjud with the regulotory authority and adjudica finolly culls out is thqt although the Act indi expressions like 'refund', 'interest', 'penolty' a a conjoint reading of Sections 18 and 19 c when it comes to rejund oI the omount q refund omount, or directing payment of i delivery of possession, or penalty ond interest regulotory authority which has the power determlne the outcome ofo complaint.

At the comes to a question oI seeking the reli compensation and interest thereon under Secti 19, the odjudicating officer exclusively cletermine, keeping in view the collective reod redd with Section 72 ofthe Act. ifthe odjudicqti( 12, 14, 18 and 19 other than compensotion extencled to the odjudicating offcer as prayed mqy intend to expand the ombit and scope ct functions of the odjudicating olficer under Sec would be agoinst the mandate of the Act 2016.

30.

Hence, in view of the authoritative pronouncement Court in the case mentioned above, the authorify entertain a complaint seeking refund ofthe amount a amount.

F.

Findings on the obiection raised by the respond I Obiection on ground of complainants being in 31.The respondent submitted that the complainants consumer/allottee, thus, the complainants are not en the Act and thus, the present complaint is not 32.The authority observes that the Act is enacted to consumers ofthe real estate sector.

It is settled princi preamble is an introduction of a statute and states enacting a statute but at the same time preamble can enacting provisions of the Act.

Furthermore, it is section 31 of the Act, any aggrieved person can file promoter if the promoter contravenes or violates any laint No.

8045 of 2022 reference has tion delineoted officer, what tes the distinct 'compensotion', monifests that interest on the t for deloyed ereon, it is the exomine and e time, when it of qdjudging s 12,14,18 and the power to of Section 71 under Sections s envisoged, envisoged, if ot, in our view, the powers and ion 71 and thot the Hon'ble Supreme as the iurisdiction to interest on the refund tors. are investor and not ed to the protection of able. rotect the interest of e of interpretation that in aims and objects of be used to defeat the ent to note that under complaint against the rovisions ofthe Act or Page 9 of16 HARERA GURUGRA[/ rules or regulations made thereunder.

Upon car documents it is revealed that the complainants are an have paid total price of Rs.5,61,127/- to the promoter said unit in the project of the promoter.

At this stage, upon the definition of term allottee under the Act, below for ready reference: "2(d) "ollottee" in relation to o real estote prcject whom o plot, apartment or building, asthe ollotted, sold (whether os lreehold or leo transferred by the promoter, qnd includ subsequently acquires the said allotment th or otherwise but does not include o person apartment or builcling, os the case moy be, 33. ln view of above-mentioned definition of"allottee" as conditions of the buyer's agreement executed be complainants, it is crystal clear that the complai subject unit was allotted to them by the promoter. not defined or referred in the Act.

As per the definitio of the Act, there will be "promoter" and "allottee" and having a status of "investor".

The Maharashtra Real E in its order dated 29.0t.2079 in appeal no.

00060000 Srushti Sangdm Developers P+t.

Ltd, Vs, Sarvap anr. has also held that the concept of investor is not d Act.

Thus, the contention of promoter that the comp investors are not entitled to protection of this Act sta G.

Findings on the relief sought by the complainants. i.

Direct the respondents to refund the complainant which had been paid by the complainants to the V Direct the respondent to pay interest from the realization. plaint No. plaint No.

8045 of 2022 perusal of all the ottee/buyer and they wards purchase ofthe t is important to stress e same is reproduced eans the person to may be, has been ld) or otherwise the person who ugh sale, transfer ' whom such plog iven on rent;" ll as all the terms and een respondent and ts are allottees as the concept of investor is given under section 2 e cannot be a party te Appellate Tribunal 0010557 titled as M/s Leasing (P) Lts.

And fined or referred in the ainants-allottees being ds rejected. a sum of Rs.

6,00,000/- tika Ltd. ate of receiving till its Page 10 of 16 lt.

HARE]?A GURUGRAM 34.

In the present complaint, the complainant has stated to Mr.

Gagan Mahajan from the office of lnvestors Vatika Ltd. for 3 months only and assured to return period.

On such assurances of Mr.

Gagan Mahajan amount of Rs.

10,00,000/- to him.

After 4 months co that Mr.

Gagan Mahajan invested the said amount in t proect of respondent namely, 'Tranquil Heights'.

35.

Further the unit was shifted from projects namely Seven Element and Turning Poi Rs.

25,00,000/- and 5,00,000/- was adjusted.

Further a payment in the said project.

The complainants wer Tower-West end 7 admeasuring 1430 sq. ft. vide 12.0L.2077 .

No builder buyer agreement was execute 36.The unit of the complainants-allottee was cancell company on 19.06.2018 and the respondent has unit is valid as per law and they have deducted consideration and after deduction no amount was complainants have only paid Rs.5,61,1,27 /- 37.

The authority is of the view that the ccomplainants 2402, Tower-West end 7 admeasuring 1430 sq. ft. vid 12.01.2077.

No builder buyer agreement was execu The respondent on 12.06.2018 sent a notice to the co of BBA and finally on 79.06.20L8 sent a notice for cancellation of unit is bad in eyes of law as no prope complainants-allottees.

38.

Moreover, on the basis of license no. icense no.

91 of 2013 date DTCP, Haryana, a residential group housing colony Page 11 of 16 plaint No.

8045 of2022 at he has given money inic for investment in amount after the said complainants gave an plainants got to know e booking of the unit in 20,00,000/- total paid quil height' in the two t and an amount of e complainants made allotted unit no.

2402, otment letter dated between the parties. by the respondent that cancellation of tte 10% of the sale left to refund as the were allotted unit no. allotment letter dated d between the parties. plainants for execution rmination of unit.

The notices was served to 26.10.2013 issued by the name of "Turning HARERA GURUGRA[/ Point" was to be developed by the respondent/buil 18.80 acres situated in Sector 88-B, Gurugram.

Thi registered vide registration certificate No.

213 of 2 After its launch by the respondent/builder, units in th different persons on vide dates and that too for vari Though, the due date for completion of the project the allotted unit comes out to be 15.03.2025, the progress at the site except for some digging work.

Ev file quarterly progress reports Section 11 ofAct, 2016.

So, keeping in vi ofthat project approached the authority by v/ay of of 2021 and 27 others titled as Ashish Kumar seeking refund of the paid-up amount besides that the project has been abandoned and there is no p the site.

The version of respondent/builder in those co and who took a plea that the complaints being maintainable.

Secondly, the project had not been ab delay in completion ofthe same due to the reasons b the allotment was made under subventio respondent/builder had been paying Pre-EMI inte 39.

During the proceedings held on 12.08.2022, the avtho as under: a.

Interim RERA Panchkula issued a registration certi project being developed by M/s Vatika form REP-lll prescribed in the Haryana Real Development) Rules, 2017 vide registration no.

15.09.2017 valid up to 15.09. to 15.09.2025 under section 5 spite of lapse of more than 4 years since grant of alleged by the counsel of complainant that there i progress at site except for some digging work abandoned project.

No quarterly progress report i plaint No.

8045 of 2022 over land admeasuring proiect was later on 17 with the authority. same were allotted to us sale considerations. offer of possession of is no physical work the promoter failed to status of roject required under Ithese fa some ofthe allottees intbearing no.

173 I vs Vatika Ltd. sation by taking a plea )gress ofthe proiect at plaints was otherwise pre-mature were not ned and there was nd its control.

Thirdly, scheme and the as committed. ty observed & directed cate for the above Limited in the -. (Regulation and 213 of 2077 on the Act ibid.

But in egistration, It was no physical work nd appears to be being filed by the Page 12 of 76 * HARERA s-eunUenntrl promoter giving the status ofwork progress requi the Act, 2016.

The license no.

91 of 2013 granted by DTCP has expi the same is notyet renewed/revived, while BBAhas the validity of license.

It becomes amply clear that the defaulting/omitting in discharge of its obligations (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 but at the the provisions ofthe Haryana Development and Act 1975 also.

The authority directed the respondent to furnish account along with the statements ofall the accounts promoters. d.

In order to safeguard the interest ofthe allottees an above facts, the authority exercising its power under directs the promoter's M/S Vatika limited to stop o accounts ofthe above project rning Poi e.

Therefore, the banks are di to freeze the acco the above-mentioned promoters in order to restri further wilhdrawal from the accounts till further ord 40.

It was also observed that work at the site is standstil authority decided to appoint Shr. point Shr.

Ramesh Kumar D officer to enquire into the affairs ofthe promoter rega also directed that the enquiry officer shall report abo obligations by the promoter regard the projec amount collected land cost and con deposited in the separate RERA account as per the r 2016 and Rules 2017.

He was furtler directed to sub mentioned issues besides giving a direction to the pro books of accounts and other relevant documents req enquiry officer in the office of the authority.

The co chief financial officer as well as the officer responsib of the project were also directed to appear before were further directed to bring along with them the status of the proiect. with having regard to 70% of the total project minus the proportionate plaint No.

8045 of 2022 under section 11of d, on26.1,0.2017 and en signed declaring romoter is not only er the Real Estate e time, violating ation of Urban Area, he details of bank ssociated with these keeping in view the ection 36 ofthe Act, ations from bank nts associated with the promoter from for many years.

So, the (Retd.J as an enquiry ing the proiect.

It was t the compliance of the and more specifically m the allottee(s] of the truction cost whether uirements of the Act of t a report on the above- ter to make available ired for enquiry to the ny secretary and the for day-to-day affairs enquiry officer.

They rd of allotment and Page 13 of16 *HARER.

S-eunuennll 41. ln pursuance to above-mentioned directions passe conveyed to the promoter, the enquiry officer s L8.L0.2022.

It is evident from a perusal of the construction of the project except some excavation quarters built at the site.

Some raw material such as st and a diesel set were lying there.

It was also submi of a number of notices w.e.f.

17.08.2022 ro 18.10.202 director ofthe project, none turned up to join the enqu information as directed by the authority.

Thus, it sh directions ofthe authority as well as ofthe enquiry o to place on record the requisite information as dire( 1,2. dire( 1,2.08.2022.

So, its shows that the proiect has b promoter.

Even a letter dated 30.09.2022, filed by th proposal for de-registration of the project "Turnin with the existing allottee[s) therein has been recei wherein following prayer has been made by it: i.

Allo$,thepresentproposal/application ii.

Pass an order to de-register the project "turning P registration certificate bearing no.

213 of 2017 da iii.

Allo\a,the proposal for settlement ofallottees pro application.

I..LL To pass an order to club all the pending complain to the project "turning Point" before the Id.

Au matter and to decide the same in the manner as approye under the present proposal. v.

To pass any other relief in the favour of the appli interest ofjustice.

42.

Thus, in view of the proposal given by the promo 30.09.2022 and corroborated by the report of 18.10.2022, it was observed that the proiect namely being developed and had been abandoned by the p iv. for de-registration of the proiect registered vide ce Page 14 of 16 plaint No.

8045 of 2022 by the authority and bmitted a report on ort that there is no rk and pucca labour el, dust, other material that despite issuance to Mr.

Surender Singh ry and file the requisite s that despite specific r, the promoter failed vide its order dated n abandoned by the promoter containing a Point" and settlement by the authority and ing' registered vide 75.09.2077. in the present claims with respect rity in the present ld.

Authority will nt company in the r to the Authority on quiry officer dated rning Point" was not oter.

Even he applied ificate no.

213 of 2017 HARERA GURUGRA[/ dated 15.09.2017 and was filing a proposal for settle the prolect by way of re-allotment or by refund of mo view of the stand taken by the developer while su authority on 30.09.2022 and the report ofthe Enquiry that the project has been abandoned.

Thus, the allotte no.

773 of 2027 and 27 others titled as Ashish Kum Ltd. h Kum Ltd. were held entitled to refund ofthe amount paid against the allotment of the unit as prescribed under Act, 2016 providing for refund of the paid-up amo prescribed rate from the date ofeach payment till the within the timeline as prescribed under Rule 16 of reference to Section 18(1)(bJ ofthe Act is necessary 18.

Ifthe promoterfails to complete or is unoble to possession ofan apartment, plot or building, account of suspension or revocation of the regi. th is Act or for any other reasoL he shall be liqble on demand to the allottees, in case wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejl other remedy ovoiloble, to return the omount respect ofthot aportmenL plot building,as the case interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this beho compensation in the monner os provided under this 43.

It is proved from the facts detailed above and not re that the project has already been abandoned and th spot.

The developer used the monies of the allottee without initiating any work at the project site an payments against the allotted unit.

So, in such si entitled for refund of the paid-up amount i.e., developer with interest at the rate of 110l0 p.a. [the S marginal cost oflending rate (MCLR) applicable as on under Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regula plaint No.

8045 of 2022 nt with the allottees in ies paid by them.

So, in mitting proposal with cer, it was observed in complaint bearing r Aggatwal vs Vatika them to the promoter ection 18(1) (b) ofthe t with interest at the ate of actual realization e Rules, 2017, ibid.

A viding as under: per on n under allottee 'ice to ony by him in ty be,with including tted by the developer is no progress at the for a number of years continued to receive ion complainants are 5,61,127 /- from the Bank of India highest ate +2 o/o) as prescribed on and Developmentl Page 15 of 16 ffHARERA #- arnuennH,r Rs.5,67,127 /- received by it 45.

46. unit along with interest at the date of each deposit ii. eposit ii.

A period of 90 directions given in follow.

Complaint stands di File be consigned to No.

8045 of 2022 Rules, 2017 from the date of deposit till its within the timelines provided in rule 16 ofthe Haryana Rules,2017, ibid.

H.

Directions ofthe authority 44.Hence, the authority hereby passes this order an issues the following directions under section 37 ofthe Act to ensure co of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted section 34(0: the authority under i.

The respondent is directed to refund the paid-up amount i.e. against the allotted 1L0/o per annum from to comply with the consequences would rli3 G \ Dated: 09.08.2024 Member Real Estate Authority, Gurugram Page 16 of 16 (Sarlieev Kumar Arora)