BHARAT BHUSHAN vs OCEAN SEVEN BUILDTECH PVT LTD

LIARERA GURUGRAN/ BIFORETHE CompLaint No.6553 ol l02l HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORI'TY, GURUGRAM ComPlaint no.: FiBt date ofhearlng I Date ofdecision I I\4r.

Bharat Bhushan R/o: - House No.742P Seclor5.

Near Rdm Vandrr.

Gurugram 122001.

Velsus M/s Ocean Seven Buildtech Private Limited Regd.

Otrice At: - B-4, 505 506, Spaze I Tech Park Sohna Road, Sector49, Curugran_ 122018.

6554 ol2022 05,10.2023 06.04,2024 CORAM: ShriVijay Kumar Goyal Sh ri Ashok Sangwan APPEARANCE: Shr,Bharat Bhushan 1.

The present €omplaint has been filed by the complainant/allott'c under section 3 1 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Developmeno A€t 201 6 ( r' short, the Acq read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (R'Suldtron and Development) Rules,2017 [in short, the Rules) for violation oisection 11(4)(al of the Act wherein it is in&r a/io prescr,bed that the prDmoter shall be responsible tor all obligations, responsibilities and funct'ons under the provisions ofthe Act or the Rules and regulations mad' ther" under or to theallottees as perthe agreement for sale executed i'krse ComPlaiDanl in Person Advocate for the respondent company ORDER 2.

HARERA GURJGRAI\,4 Proiect and unit related details The particulars o[unit details, sale consideration, the amount paid by the compla,nants, date ol proposed handing over the possession, delay period ifany, havebeen detailed in the following tabular form: 1 2.i 1 The Venetian, Sector. a7.02.2020 (As per DTCP websirel Affordable sroup housing colony 103 0f2019 datcd 05.09.2019 valid up ro 04.09.2024 Shree Ratan Laland othcr Registered vldc ro, 39 ot 2020 dated 27,10,2(,20 valld upto02.09.02024 09.03.2021 [Page 08 oicomplaintl oL.a1 2021 lPase 15 oi con'plarrtl 1002.106 Soortower 4 lPage 17 otcomplaintl 571.105sq. ft- 98 sq- ft. (Paqe 17 of the.omplaintl oJ ticenu ("connitne-nt Perioi), but 'rhe Compony sholl sncerclt endeovot to . eovot to .omplek the construction ond oJJer the posession of che satd unit withtn lveyeorsltun the dote althe recentnu Complaint No.

6558 or2022 BuildinE plan approval Environment clearance Builderbuyeraereement B 11 HARERA GURUGRAI\,4 subject to force nojeure ctouse ol ths Agrcement and tinely poyment oJ instollments bt the Allotteeb) However in .ose the Canpont .ompletes thc cohstruction prior to the period oI 5 !eo6 the Allouee shdll not rois an! objection in toking the posesion oliet poynent oJ rcnoining sole ptice and other choryes stiptloted tn the Agreenent to sell.

The Conpony on obtajn i ng ce ft ilc o te fa r occ u po t t on a n d use by the competent Authorities sholl hand over the said unit to the Allattec lot hb/her/their occuponon ohd use, suhject to the Allottee having complted v/ith ollthe terns ond condxlonsoJ the nkl Polt ! and Asteenent to Selt ond Possession cl.use as per Affordable housing poli.r 2013 1lv) of the Allordoble ttotsing Poti.y, zo t:t All such p.olects thall be re.tuned b bt n.c.sorily conpleted ||nhin 1leots tnn the opprorol olbuildins plun\ o, 9.art.1 enviohnenrol clearunce, whrhever )\ loteL Thk dote sholl be tefe.rel b a\ Lht "dote ofconnenInent ol pro)ed la, the Du/pose ol thk poli.y The lienses sbatt rrL be renewed beyand the sotd 4 reot\ let nd oynehts node as per Polnent Plon hon the dore olcanheh.en)cnt alp^\!tL a,nnotbe ascertained Total srle p.ir€ of theflar Rs-23,33,4?o l- lPage 2o ofcomplaintl Rs.5,89,189/' [As alleged by complainant at Pase 24.02.2022 Ipase 50 ofcomplaintl Su.render request by the B.

Facts ofthe complalnt The complainant has made the following submissions in the complaint: Due date ofposseseon 72 HARERA Compla'nr No 6558, l2nl2 T t\r tl 5.

GURJGRA]V That the complainant was allotted a unit bearing no.

1002,'lower 4 having 571.105 sq. ft. carpet area and 98 sq. and 98 sq. ft balcony area in project or the respondent named "The Venetian" at Sector_7o, Curugram under affordable group housingvide allotment leiter dated 09.03 2021 That the total sale consideration ot the said unit was Rs23,33,420/_ againstwhich the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.5,89,189/ in all.

That the construction at the project site has not been start€d and the environmentalclearance otrhe project has still not been obtained bv the That due to an inordinale delay on part ol the respondent lo star! construct,on ofthe project in question, the complainant has surrendered the flat vide letter dated 24.022022 ald requested the respondent lo refund the paid_upamount.

However, the same has not been reiunded till date.

Hence, the present comPlaint.

C.

Reliefsought by the complainant _ 4.

The complainant has soughtfollowing relief(s): l.

Direct the respondentto refundtheentrre paid Lrpamounl a!'ng\rtll prescribed rat€ ot interest from the date of each pavmen: tLll rt\ realization.

On the date of hearin& tlte authonty explained to the respondent/ promoter about the contraventions as alleged to have been committed 'n relation to section 11(41 [a] ofthe act to plead guiltv or not to plead suikv Reply by the r€spondent The respondent is contesting the complaint on the iollowing Srounds: I.

That this hon'ble authority lacks jurisdiction to ad)udicate upon the present complaint Both parties have €xecut'd an arbitration clause' D, 6. & HARERA comblaintNo.6558ot2022 GURUGRAN/ clearly outlined in the agreement, empowering either party to seek resolution through arbitration.

As per the said arbit.ation clause, any disputes arising out oi the agreement shall be submitted rc an arbitrator for resolution.

Theretore, the present matter be .efe rred to arbitration in accordancewith the terms set forth,n the agreement Il.

That as expressly stipulated in the agreement to sale, the parties, herei., the complainant and responde. responde.t, have unequivocallv agreed to resolve any disputes through arbitration This agreement to sell is fortified by clause 16.2 wherein lt is stated that all or any disputes arising out of or touching upon or relat,ng to the terms of thrs agreement to sell/conveyance deed lncluding the interpretation and validity ofthe terms hereofand the respective rights and obligations of the parties, which cannot be amicably settled despite best effor!s. shall be settled through arbitration.

The arbitration p.oceedings shall be governed by the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory amendments/modiEcadons thereof lor the tim€ being rn force.

The arbitraiior proc€edlngs shall be held at the office ot the company in Gurgaon by a sole a$itrator who shall be appointed bv th€ company.

The cost oithe arbitration Proceedings shall be borne bythe parties equally The language of arbitration shallbe in English' In caseofanyproceedin& referenc€ etc. touching upon the arbitration subiect including any award, the territorialjurisdiction ofthe courts shall be Gurgaon, Haryana as well as ot Punjab and Haryana H'gh court at Chandigarh.

That the respondent has not filed his first statement before this court in the subiect matter.

HARERA GURJGRAIV Complajnt No.

6558 of 2022 I1l.

That the compla,nant is a willful defaulter and deliberalel), intentionally and knowingly have not paid trmely installments lhe complainant is a defaulter under section 19(6) & 19(Tlolthe Act lt is humbly submitted thatthe complainant failed to clear hrs outnand n8 dues despte severalreminders thatwere issued by the respondent Iv.

That the complainanls motives are marred by malafide intentron\ The present conlplaint, iounded on false, labricated, and eroneous grouDds, is perceived as an att€mptto blackmarl the .espon dent. 'l h t complainant, in reality, is acting as an extortionist, seeking to extrrcr money lrom the respondent through an urgent and unjustined .otuplaint. otuplaint.

This action is not only illegal and unlawful but .tlso gocs against the principles o f natural iustice.

V.

That there is every apprehens,on that the complainant rn 'ollusroo rvith any staff member of the respondent companv jncllrdrng c\ e mployee or those who held positio ns d uring that ti me muv prLt iorrh the altered and labricated document which is contradictorv to thc affordable housing policy & should not be considered bindins on rlr( company in any man ner whatsoever' 7.

Copies of all the relevant documents have been filed and pl'rced on th( record.

Their authenticity is not in dispute Hence the complaint crn bc decrded on the basis of,these undisputed documents and submissron nradt lurisdictlon of th€ authorlty The authority observes that it has territorial as well as subiect matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for the reasons given E, HARERA GURUGRAl\/ E.l Territoriallurisdiction 9.

As per notification no.

1/92/2017.1TCP doted 1412 2017 issued bt' Town and Country Planning Department, the jurisdjction of Real Istat( Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be enti.e Gurugram Drstrict for all purpose with officessituated in Gurugram.ln the present case, the prole.r in question is s,tuated within the planning area of Gurugram lrislri.t Therefore, this authority has complete terntorial jurisdiction to deal w'th the present complaint.

E,ll Subject matter iurisdictioD 10.

Section 11[4][r) of the Ac!

2016 provides that the promoter shrll b. responsible io the allottee as per agreement for sale. section 11(al(.r) rs reproduced as hereund€rl tiIrt " p,"^,t"rstott- (a) be respansible fot olt obtigotions, responsibtlirtes ond lunLton\ ,nder the prorBions ol this Act o. the rule, ond re!)ulutn'n\ nade the.eunder ot ta the ollottees os per the ogrceneht lot .ale ot ta th. atsauotioh ololloxe$,at the case no! be, tillthrconv.lan.e olott nf opatunen\, plats ot buildingtosthecote hoy be totheolkntee\ ot thc . \ ot thc . a nn on o rcas ta the asoddno n ol o ttattee s o r th e.an pe t ent d ut h a t 1 q os the case noY be) Section 34 Fulctlons oJthe Authorlty: 31(, of the Act prcviA5 tu enswe conphan.e althe obhgodons tur upoh the pranoters, the ollattees ond the rcoleiote ogent\ uhdet th\ Actond the rulet "nd.esulattans node thereundet 11.

So, in view of rhe provisions ot ihe Act quoted above, the authonry has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non_compl,ance of obligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating otricer ifpursued by rhe complainant at a later anm.l:,nt No.6553of 20?2 HARERA [ *-,.,,, ,. , ,.,., GUR-GRAI\,4 L Further the authority has no hitch in proceeding with the complaint and to grant a reliefofrefund in the present matter in view ofthe judgement passed by the Hon'ble ApexCouttin Newbch Pmmote$ ond Developers Prlvate Limiteil vs State ol U.P. and ors, 2021'2022 (1) RcR (civil), 3 s7 and reiteroted in case ol M/s Sano Realtors Prlvote Llmited & other vs Uniot ol Indta & others SLP (Ctv ) No.

13005 or 2020 declded on 12.05.2022 whetein tthas been laid down as under: "86 Fron the ehene ol the Act X wllich o detoile.l refqence hos been node ond tdking note ol pow.t ol odJudicotion delin@tetl |9th rhe /egulatory outhantJ ahd odiudi@tilg oJfc.t, whot fnoll! culb out is thot olthoush the Act indicotes th. dis nct eqressions like refund , tnt*est" 'penolA ond tonpehetion, o conjoint rcoding of kctions 1A ond 19 cleotly naniksB thdt eh.n n .on6 to refund oJ the onaunt, ond tnteren oh the relund ohount, ar directing pdlnett of intercst far deloled delivety of pase$ion, o. pendlty dnd interen thereon, it is the resulotory outhority |9hich hosth. pawer to exanine ahd delernine the out.ome af o conploint Atthe sone tine, wheh t cames too questian olseektns the rcliefoJadittlgiag @npensdtian ond inrercst th.reon Lnder Se. ons 12.

14, 18 ond 19, the adjudicating offcet %clunvelr hos the powe. the powe. to deternine, keepi4q in vitu the @llective reodiag ol Sethon 71 .eod with Section 72 oltheAct iJthe odjudkatioh ndetSections 12 14 13 ond 19 othet thon 1npNtion os envisdged, il dtended to the oa)udrcottnt ollcet as ptuyed thoa in o$ eiew tuol t^tend to expand the onbt ond vope ol the powes ohd fsnctions ofth. adjudiconns oflicer unde. sectton 71 ond thot would be ogoihsr the nondare oJ the Act 2016,' Hence, in view of the authorhtivepronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases mentioned above, the authority has the jurisdiction to eDtertain a complaint seeking refund of the amount and interest on the tindings on obi€ctlons raised by the r€spondent I.I Obrection r€garding complalnant is ln breach ofagreement fo r non-lnvocation of arbitratlon.

The respondent has submitted that the complaint is not maintainable ibr the reason thatthe aereement contain s an arbitration clause which refers to the dispute resolution mechanism to be adopted by the parlies in th.

13 t.

HARERA comol.int No 6558of 2022 GURL,]GRA[/ event ofa.y dispute.

The authority is of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the authority cannot be fettered by the existence ofan arbitration clause in th e buyer's agreement as it may be noted thatsection 79 ofthe Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts about any matter which falls within the purv,ew ofthis authority, or the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

Thus, thc intention to rendersuch d,sputesas non_arbitrable seems tob€ clear Also, section 88 otthe Actsays that the provisions ofthis Act shallbe in addrtron to and not i. derogation ofthe provis,ons of any other law for the time beingin force.

Furthet the authority puts reliance on catena ofjudgmenls ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court, partLulady in lYation ol Seeds Corporotlon Limiteil v.

M.

Madhusuilhan Reddf & Anr. (2012) 2 scc5o5, wherein it has been held that the remedies provided under th€ CoDsumer Protect'on Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the other laws in force. in force. consequently the authority would not be bound to refer parties to arbitrat,on even ifthe agreement between the parties had an arbitranon clause.

Therefore, by applying same anatory the pr€sence of arbitrat'on clause could notbe construedto take away the iurisdiction ofthe authoriry 15.

Further, ,n Altab S'lngh atd ols. v.

Emaar MCF Land Ltd and ors., consumer case no.

701 oi2015 declded on 13.07.2017, the National Consumer D,sputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC) has held that the arbitration clause in agreements betlveen the complainants and builders could not circumscr,be the jurisdiction of a consumer lrurthcr, while considering the issue of maintainab,lity ol a complainl before r consumer forum/commission in the fact oian existing a.bitration clause in the bu,lder buyer agreement, the hon'ble Supreme Court in cose titled as M/s Emaar MCF Land Ltd v.

Aftab Singh tn revisiot petition o' z62s-30/2o18 tn cMl appeal no.

23s12'23573 ol 2077 'tecided on HARERA GURJGRAIV 10.12,2018 has \lpheld rhe aforesaid)udgeme.tofNCDRC and as provided in Articl€ 141ofthe Consiitution oflndia, the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts with,n the territory of India and accordingly, the authority is bound by the aforesaid view Thereiore, in view ofthe above judgements and consider,ng the provision ofthe Act, the authority,s oftheview that complainant is wellwithin his right to seek a special renedy available in a beneficial Act such as the Consumer Protectio.

Act and RERA Act,2016 instead ofgoing in for an arbitration Hence, we have no hesitation h holding that this authority has the requisite jurisdiction to enterialn the mmplai.tand that the disPute does not requireto be referred to arbitration neoessarily. c.

Findings on the reuef sought by the complalbant.

G.l Dlrect th€ respond€nt to refuDd the pald'up amount alo.8_wlth 15.

The complainant was allotted a unlt bearing no.

1002, in Tower'4 havrng carpet area of 571.105 sq. ft.

05 sq. ft.along with balcony with area of98 sq. ft in th' project ofrespondent named "Venetian" at Sector 70, Gurugram under th' Aff,ordable Housing Policy, 2013 vide allotment letter dated 09.03.2021 Thereafter, builder buyer agreementwas executed on 01.07'2021, between the parties in respect of ihe subject unit As per clause 1( ivl ot th€ po licv o l 2013, all projects under the said Policv shall be requ,red to be necessarilv completed within 4 years from the date of approval of building plans or grant of environmental clearance, whichever js later.

Thus, the possession ofthe unit was to be offered within 4 years from the approval of buildinS plans (07.02.2020) orfrom the date ofenvironmentclearance (not obtarned yet).

Therefore, the due date of possession cannot be ascertained' As per record, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.5,89,189/- to respondenr' HARERA Compla'nt No.

6558 of 20lz GURJGRAI\,I Due to failure on the part of the respondent in obtaining environment cleara.ce trom the concerned authority and inordinatedelay on paft ofthe respondent to start construction ofthe project in question, the compla'nanl has surrendered the unit/flatvide Ietterdated 24.02.2022.

17.

As per the clause 5 (iii)(h) of the Affordable Housing Policy, 2013 as amended by the State Government on 05.07.2019, the relevant provision regarding surrender ofthe atlotted unit by the allottee has been laid down and thesame is reproduced as underj Clause 5(lll) (h) ofth€ AEordabl€ Houshg Policy, 2013 "A woiting list fo. a noxintn ol25% of the totol ovoiloble nunber ol lots ovatabte far allotnent, na, otso be prePoe.t duttho the drow oftots who con b. ollercd the dttonnent in mse ehe ol the successfut otlottees ore not oble ta renove the defrciencies in then opplicotion wthtn the prescribed period oI 1s doys. [an surrendet ol lot br anv ttccesslut ollotke, the anount thot can be lorkited bv the colonizer in odtliti.n to Rt25,Aaa/- shal not dceed thelollowing: - Gal ln. - Gal ln.ase oisu(ender of flat beiorc commen.eme.t of proiect (bbl Upto l year fr.m the date ol commencementoathe proj.ct :q "rtr.c o*.i Upro 2 year r.om the datc ol comdencementoitheproject After 2 y€a6 from in€ drte of comm€ncement of the project J such fots nat be consirtercd bt the connittee lot ofier .o thoe opplkonts lalling n the waiting list.

HoweveL nonrenovol ol deficiencies bt ont suc@sttul applicont sholl not be cohsidered as suftender of JloL ond na such deductioh oI k 2 5,000 sholl be opPhcable on su.h .o*s. f ant woit lbted condidote does not *ont tn 'hminue in the 9/oiting list, he na! vekwthtlrowol ontl the licencee sholl relund the booking ohount within 30 dolt without inporng an! penaltv The wadhg list shall be nointoined t'ar o petiod of 2 tears, after whith the HARERA Compla'nt No.

6558 oi20ll GURJGRAI\/ bootng onourt sholl be rcfunded bdck to the \|oitlkted dppkonts, wthout any ihterest, All nonaucce$lll opplicants sholl be relunded bock the booking onountwtttih 15 dots ol holding the dtuw ofloE".

18- In the present matter, thesubject unitwas surrendered by the complainant allottee v,de letter dated 24.02.2022 due to tailure on the part of the respondent in obtaining environment clearance and has requested the respondent to cancel the allotment and reiund the entne amount paid by him along with inte.est.

19.

Clause 5 (iii)(bl oithe Affordable Housing Policy, 2013 as amended by thc State Government on 22.07.2015 provldes that if the licensee aails to 8et environmental clearance even after on€ year olholding draw, the licencce is liable to refund the amount deposited by the applicant along with an interest of 12%, if lhe allottee so desires.

The relevant provision 's reproduced below for ready reference: "The lats in o specific p.oject sholt be d otEd n one 9o within faur nonths aJ the sonction of building plo6 tn cose, the hunber ol opPlrcations re.etved is lc$ thon the nunbet olsonctioneA fuB,the ollot ent con behodeih tuoar note phoses. te phoses.

Ho\|ever, the ltcenee sill ttort the consttuction only ofter re.etpt t,l environnentol cleatunce lron the.onpetent ou otiry' 'rhe li@n@e viJl start rec.itlnq rhe fudner insta nqts onry once the dvlr mentdl cleoronce is [email protected] Further, il th. licq.ee, Idil to eet envircnmentot iterune ev.n ofur one t ot ol hot.tinc oI .trow, the lic.n..e is liobk to relVad the onotlt .lep@it d b! the dpplkont otongwith dn hterett of 12, f the dllon@ so deslrcs " 20- Also, the respondenthas raised an ob,ection that compla,nant allottee is. wilful detaulter and has failed to make payment ofthe instalments and has thusviolated provisions ofsection 19(6) & (7) ofthe Act.ln this regard thc authority observes that as per clause s(iii)tb) of the Afrordable Hous'ns Policy,2013, the licencee willstart rec€,v,ngthe further installments onlv oDce the environmental clearanc€ is received.

As delineated hereinabove, the respo ndent has fa,led to obtain environmental clearance tilldate, thus gHA S-crn RERA Codplri.r No.6553 ol 20ll JGRAN/ are not entitled to receive any lurther payments.

Hence, the objection r.ired bythe respondenl is devoid ofments.

21.

Further, as per amendment dated 09.07.2018 in Affordable Group Hos'ng Policr 2013, the rate ofinterest in case ofdefault shallbe as per rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Developmentl Rules, 2017.

Rule 15 ofthe rules is reproduced as under: Rula 15.

Pewibed rate al ihterest- [Ptovttu to ecrion 12, section laand sub4ection (4) and stbre.tion (7) ofsecttoh 191 For the purpose ol prcvho to tuaa 12: ection 13) ond sub senions ft) and {7) ol ection 19, the 'inter*t ot the rate ptescribed shollbe the Stotz qonk of lndio highen narstnol cost of lendins roE t2%.: Prcvided thot in cose the stote Bank ol lndio norginol cast ol lending roE (MCLR) isnotin use, it sholl be leploc.d brsu.h benchmotk lending rates which the Stot Bonkoltndio noJfx Fon tine to tineforlendihg ta the gnerol Public.

22. ublic.

22.

The leg,slature in its wisdom in the subordinate legislation under the rule 15 ofthe rules has determiled the prescribed rate otinterest.

The rate of interest so determin€d by the tegislature, is reasonable and ilthe said rule is iollowed to award the interest,ltwill ensure uniform practice in allthe 23.

Thus, the complainant-allottee is entitled lo refund of the entire amount deposited along with lnterest at the prescribed rate as per aforesad provisionslaid dos'n underAffordable Housing Policy, 2013.

24.

Hence, the respondent/promoter is directed to relund the entire pard-up amount as per clause 5(iii)(b) of the ofAffordable Housing Policy, Z0l3 ils amended by the State Government on 22.07 2015, along with prescribed rate of interest i.e., @ 1 1% p.a. [the State Bank of lndia highest margr nal co st ollendingrate (MCLR) applicable as on date +20.61as prescribed under rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Developmen0 Rules, 2017 HARERA GURUGRAM from the date of each payment till the actual realization of the .rmoun( within the timelines provided in rule 16 olthe Haryana Rules 2017 ibjd H.

Directions ofthe authority 25.

Hence, the authority hereby passes thrs order and issue the iollowlnB directions under section 37 ofthe Act to ensure compl'ance of obliSatrons carted upon the promote. as per the functions entrusted to the authont! under section 34(0 oithe Act: i The respondentis di.ected to retund theentire pard-up amount as p.r clause s[iii][b) ofthe Afiordable Housing Po]icy, 2013 as amended b) the State Government on 22.07.2015, along with prescribed r.ite ol interesti.e., @11%p.a.asprescribedunderrulel5 ofthe Rules 2017 fron the date ofeach payment tillthe actual realization otthe anroufr ii.

A perlod ol90 days is given to the respondent to comply wrth the directionsgiven in this ord€r aailing which legalconsequenc.s wo! d 26.

The complaints stand disposedol 27.

Files be consigned to regislry. regislry. (Ashok san 'n) vr- <--> tvilay Ku'marcoyal) *",*-, Haryana Real Dared , 05.08.2 0 24 (Arun Kumar) Chairman Estate Regulatory Author,ty, Curugram