MR SUKHVINDER SINGH vs OCEAN SEVEN BUILDTECH PVT LTD

iTHARERA S-eunuennrtr BETORE THE IIARYANA REAI, ESTATE R GURUGRAM CORAM: ShriArun Kumar Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal Sh ri Ashok Sanswan Complaint No.

7372 of 2022 ECULATORY AUTHORITY, Date of decision: 22.10.2024 Orean Seven aDildt.rh Pvt.

Ltd The Venetian, Sector' 70, Gurugram, Haryana cF/7172/2022 Mrs Rami.derjeetXaur M/so.eanSeven Bu dte.h Mrs.

RaminderjeetKa!r (comphinantin peBon) 2.

CR/7311/2022 Mr Sukhvinder Singh M/s0ceanSeven Buildtech (Complainanr in personl ORDER 1.

This order shall dispose ofall the complaints titled above 6led before this authority under sectron 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Developmentl Act 2016 [hereinafter referred as "the Act") read with rule 28 ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred as "the rules") forviolation ofsection 11(41(al ofthe Act where,n it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all its obligations, responsibilities and functions to the allottees as perthe agreement for sale executed inter se parties.

Chairman MembeI .! i, ''.

HARERA GURUGRAI\/ Buildina plan appmval RER]I Rqistered/ not Possession clause as per ConplaintNo 7372 o12022 l.

The core issues emanating from them a.e similar in nature and the complainant(s) in the above ref,€rred matters are allottees oithe project, namely, 'The Venetian", Sector 70, Gurugram, Haryana beinS developed by the respondent/promoter i.e., M/s Oc€an Seven Buildtech Private Limited.

The terms and conditions of the allotment letter, buyer's agreements, fulcrum of the issue involved in all these cases pertains to failureon thepartolthe promoterto delivertimely possess,on of the units in question thus seeking refund of the unit along with interest.

Th€ details oi the complaintg unlt llo., date of agreement, possessron clause, due date ofpossession, bral sale consideration, totalpaid amount, and reliefsought a.e given in the table below: ''The Venetian',Se.to.

70, CurusrJm, Hiryani. , Hiryani.

Afordable aroup housine colony 103 ot20t9 datcd 05.09.2019 Lrcensee- Shree Ratan Lal ao{l others a7 a2.2A2A Regiitered vide no,39 o12020 dated 27.10.2020 occupation certificate The Cohpahy sholl sincerel! endeoeat to complete the constfu.tion on.t oller the possessiod ol the soid tnit within free tea6 lron the date ol the .eeeiins oJ litqse ( commitment Period"), but subieer to lor.e najeu.e .laue ol thb Asreqent on.t timety powent of instollmenb bt the a ottee(s). ltawerer in cae the ConpohJ cohpletes the.anstudnn pnor ta Project Naoe and Envi.onnert .leaEnc€ HARERA GURUGRA[I ComplaintNo 7372of 2022 the period of 5 yqrs the Allotte. shdll not roise ony objection in taking the pBsession olter palnent ol rchdlnlng tule pdce dnd other.horges stipulate.l in the Agrenqt to lell.

The conpon! oh obtoinihg cenficate for o.cupotion and use by the Conpetent Arthoririp\ th.ll honn nv"r rhp vi.l unit tnthp Alln pp for his/her/thet occupatioh ond ue, subject to the Allattee having conplied with oll the terns ond cohditions ol the eid Poli.! ond Agteeneht ta 911uhtl poynents nade as pet Palnent Plon.

Possession .lause as per Aflo.dable Housing 1!v) olthe Allordobte Housing Potict,2013 ,1lt such prajects sholt he rcgLircd to he nr.c$o'nt conpleted withtn 1 !eo$ lroh rhe opprovot oJ building plons or srant oJ environtnental ctearanee ||hithevet is lotcr.

Thit.late thall bc rclctt..l tu dt rhc ''dote af connehcenent af p.atett lar Lhe prrttua 4 this palicy.

The licenses sholl not be tcnewe.l bqand th. soid 4 lears penod lton rhe dak oJ Nnnn rcnlcnr .l HARERA GURUGRA[/ Complaint No.

T3T2 or2022 bitr abbtuv'arioN hav.b..n us.d r nepry rt.. v.d by the rospondenr ^de!n( paid by thc arronee/s 4 The iacts of all the complaints f:1ed by the complainant(s)/atlouee(s) are sinr'1ar.

0ut ol the above-mentioned case, rhe particulars ol lerd clse CR/7372/2022 r,tLd as RominderJeet Kaur vs.

M/s oceon seven Ruildtech PeL Ltd. h PeL Ltd. ate being taken into consideration lor derernrining thc nghts oltheallottee(s).

A.

Proiectand unit related details 5.'l'heparticularsoftheproject,thedetailsoisaleconsiderahon,theamount paid by the complainant, date ol proposed handing over the posression, delay period, iiany, have been derailed in the fbuowrng rabular fornr: cR/7372/2022 titled as Raminderjeet Kaur Vs.

M/sOcean Seven The Venetian, Sector HARERA GURUGRAIV complaintNo.

7372 of 2022 Affordable group housing colony F Shree Ratan Lal and othc^ Building plan approval 103 of2019 dated 0s.09.2019 v.lid up ro 04.09,2024 a7 02.2020 [As per DTCP website] valid upro 02,09.02024 09.03 2n21 IPage 12 ofcomplaintl lPage 20 ofcomplaintl not LRegistered vide no.39 of2020 dated 27.10.2020 Buildcr buye. a,lreement 14.08 2021 706,7th floor, tower 5 IPasc 22 otcompldintl 571.105 sq. ft.

Garpct arcal (Pase 22 ofthe compl.'ntl fhe Compont sholl sincerely endeovor to conpl*e the @nstucnot ond offer the possession of the flid Dit within lile tea.s trom the ddt ol the reeiviog ol li.4k ( Conmitndt Penod ), but subject to Jorce najeure ctouse oI th,s Agreement ond tinely pat nent ol itstdllmenb b! the Allottee(s).

Howevet t n co se the Con po ny co n pl e tes th e con stru. ti o n prior to the petiod al S yeorc the Auottee sho not tuise any oble.tion in takins the possession afier pdynent of renainins 1( HARERA GURUGRAM ComplaintNo.

7372 of 2022 sole price on.l other chorges stipuloterl in the Agtetu t to sell.

The Canpony an @nd)tionsolthe eid Policy ond Agrcenent to sell ond potdents nade as per Pothent l 7(tv) oJ the allordabte Eousins potxy, 207i obtaining cefiifrcote fot ouupotion ohd use tttheConpet t Authorities sholl hdnrJ over the id uAit to the Anotue lot his/he4then occupotion ond use, tubject to the Allattee hovjns conplied with all the terns ond All such p.oje.t: sho be rcqLned t. he hece*anl! canpleted wthtn 4 yeo^ lratn the opprolol al buil. l al buil.liat plans ot qnnt ol envitonnental cleoronce, whrchevct a tot.t This doteshall be relcrrca b os the dote ol cannencenent of proje.t lor the purpay ol thts poli.f. lhe licenses shall nat b.,ehewed belond the soid 4 yeoL periorllron ihe darc af nnnencencnt al prc)e.t 20r3 surrender request by the Cdnhotbc ficertrrned Rs.8,83,785/- Rs.Z3,33,420 /- lPase 25 ofconplaintl lAs alleged by.omplainant at paee 5 or 73.06.2022 It 6.

Facts ofthe complaint The complainant has made the following submissions in the complaint' l.

That the complainant was allofted a unit bearing no.

706, 7fr floor, in Tower- 5, havins 571.105 sq. ft. carpet area and 98 sq. ft. balconyarea Due date olposseesion TutJl \J E rr Le.frhe fla!

Amount paid by the 1, c.

7.

D, 9.

I HARERA ComplaintNo.

7372 oi2022 GURUGllAN/ in project of the respondent named "The Venetian" at S€cror-70, curugram underaffordable group housing vide allotmentlene. dated 09.03.2021.

The buyer's agreement was executed berween both the parties on 14.08.2021 for the subject unit.

Il.

That the total sale consideration ol the sajd u.it was Rs.23,33,420l- against which the complainant has paid a sum ol Rs.8,83,785/ in all.

That the construction at the project site has not been starred and the environme.tal clearance of the project has still not been obtained by the respondent.

1ll.

That due to an inordinate delay on part of rhe respondent to starr construction of the project in question, the complainant has surrendered the flat vide letter dated 13.05.2022 and requested the respondent to refund the paid-up amount.

However, the same has not been refunded till date.

Hence,the present compla,nt.

R€liefsought by the cohplainant - The complainant has sought foUowing rellef[s): I.

Dir€ct the respondentto refund the entire paid-up amountalong with interest at the pr€scribed rate from the date of each payment rill its On the date of hearlng, the authority explained to the respondent/ promoter about the contraventions as alleged to ha eged to have been committed in relation to section 11(4) (al ofthe act to plead guilty or oot to plead guilty.

Reply by the respondent The respondent is contestingthe complaint on the iollowing Srounds: i.

That th,s authority lacks jurisd,ction to adjudicate upon the present complaint.

Both parties have executed an arbitration clause, clearly outlined in the agreement, empowering either party to seek resolution HARERA GURUGRAl\/ Conplaint No.

73?2 ol 2022 through arbitration.

As per the said arbitrat,on clause, any disputes arising out of the agreement shall be submitted to an arbitrator for resolution.

Therefore, the present matter be referred to arbitration in accordancewith the terms set forth in the agreement. ii.

That as expressly stipulat€d in the agr€ement to sale, the parties, herein, the complainant and respondent, have unequivocally agreed to r€solve any disputes through arbitration.

This agreement to sell is aortified by clause 16.2 whe.ein it is stated that all or any disputes arising out of or touching upon or relating to the terms of this agreement to sell/conveyadcerdaad including the inte.pretation and validity oftheterms hereof and the respective rights and obligations of the parties, which cannot beamicably settled despite best efforts, shall be settled through arbitration.

The arbitration proceedings shall be governed by theArbitrationandconc,liation Act,1996 or any statutory amendments/modifications thereof for the time being in torce.

The arbitration proceedings shall be held at the office of the company in cursaon by a sole arbitmtor vrho shatl be appointed by the company.

The cost ofthe arbitrauon proceedings shall be born€ by the parties equally.

The language of arbitratlon shau be ln English. ln case of any proceeding, reference etc. touching upon the arbitration subject including any award, the territorial jurisdiction ofthe courts shall be Gurgaon, Haryana as well as oa Punjab and Haryana High court at Chandigarh. handigarh.

Thatthe respondent has not filed hisnrststatement before this court in the subject matter. i,i.

That the complainant is a williul deiaulter and deliberately, intentionally and knowingly have not paid timely installments.

The complainant is a defaulter under section 19t61 & 19(71 ofthe Act.

It is *HARERA !i$- cunrnnrv ComplaintNo.7372 o12022 humbly submifted that the complainant failed to clear his outstanding dues despite severalreninders thatwere issued bythe respondent. iv.

That the co mplainant s motives are marred bymalafiCe intentions.The present complaint, lounded on false, fabricated, and e.roneous grounds, is perceived as an attempt to blackmail the respondenr.

The complainant, jn .eality, is acting as an extortionist, seeking to exrract money from the respondent through an urgent and unjusrified compla'nt.

This action is nor only illegal and unlawlul but nlso goes against the principles olnatural iustice. v.

I-hat there is every apprehension that the complainant in collusion with any staff member oi the respondent comp:ny including ex- employee or those who held positions during that time may put lorth the altered and fabricated document which is contradictory to the affordable housing policy & should not be considered binding on the company in any manner whatsoever.

10.

Copies ofall the relevant documents have been filed and placed on the record.

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on the basisofthese undisputed documents and submrssron made E. lurisdictio n of the authority 11.

The authority observes that it has territorial as weu as subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for the .easons given E.l Territorialiurisdiction 12.

As per notiiication no- 1/92/2017-1TCP date.l 14.12.2017 isstcd by '|own and Country Planning Departm€nt, the iurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Autbority, CuruSram shau be entire Curugram District for all HARERA GURUGRAIU ComplaintNo. mplaintNo.

7372 ol2D22 purpose withoffices situated in Curugram.In the presentcase, the project in question is situated within the planning area of curugram Districr.

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

E.n subiectmattGrlurlsdlctlon 13.

Section 11(4)(a) ol the Act, 2016 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the alloftee as per agreement for sale.

Section 11t4)(al is reproduced as hereunder: (4) rhepnnoErshotl- (o) be responsible It all obkgodohs, responsibilities ond lunctions under the proisions ol thF Act or tie tules and regulatiohs hade thereunder o. to the attnttees os p* &e ostenent lor sole, ot to the oseciation olollotn6, as the @e dly be, tlll the tunveyonce al oll the apoftnenE, plors of buildings, os the coy hoy be to the ollattees, o. the connoh oteds to the dstuciotioa ololbttes otthe conpetent authonE, ostheco nq be) Se cti on 3 4 - Fncdon s o t the Aurh orlly : 344 ol the Act prcvides to asure @nplionce olthe obligotions cast upon the pranates, the olloeees and the Ral 6ttte dgdLs Lnder thk Act ond th. rules and rqulodo$ node thereuhdeL 14.

So, in view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, the authority has cornplete jurisdictiontodecidethecomplaintregardingnon-compl,anceol obl,gations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating omcer if pursued by the complainant ata later stage.

15.

Further, the authority has no hitch in proceeding with th€ complaint and to grant a reliefofretund in the present matter in view ofthe judgement passed by the Hon'ble ApexCotJJtin Net ,tech Promoters and Dewlopers Private Limi.ed Vs State ol U.P. ond Ors, 2021-2022 (1) RCR (Civil), 357 and reiterated in case of M/s Sana Realtors Private Llmlted & other vs u HARERA ComplaintNo.

7372 of 2022 GURUGRA|\/ Union of Indio & others SLP (Ctvtt) No.

13005 of 2O2O decided on 12.05.2022 wherein ithas been laid down as under: ''36. der: ''36.

Fron the schene of the Act oJ which o detoiled rcletence hos been mode on.l toking noE of power oI odjudicotion delineoted with the rcgulato/y authonE ond adjudicating oficet, whot lndllr culs out is that although the Act ihdicates the distinct expr$lons |ike 'teluhd , inter4t', 'penolty and 'canp Ktion, o conjoint rcodins of Sections t3 and t9 dedrl! nonilesr: thotwhen it cones to refund ofthe anoun." and interest on the refund ohount, or ditecting polnent ol interett lot deloyed deliverr olpaession, or peholry and intet*t thieon, n is the regulotory olthonrywhich hos the power ta domine ond.leternine the outcone al o .anplaint At the sone ti e, *hn it @hes to o question olseking the reliel of odtLdging compenvtion oad intercst thercon under Secttons 12, &, 1A ond 19, the od)udicotlkg ofrcet ex.lusivet! hos the powet t detcmine, keeping in view the blldttue readins ofSection 71 reod with Section 72 of the Act if the odjudi@tion under Sections 12,14,lAond 19 othet thon conpentution q 4"risag.d, if extended to the adiudrottns ollicer as proted that in our iN, n.,t int d ro dpand the onbit ond scope ofthe porea and luncttons ofrhe adjurticor.ins oJlcer under sectiDn 71 and that would be aganst the nofulate oI the Act 2016." 16.

Hence,inviewof theauthoritativepronouncementof theHon'bleSupreme Court in the cases meDtioned above, the authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint seeking refund of the amount and ,nterest on the F.

Findings on obiectlons ralsed bytle respondent r.l Oblectlon reSarding complairart ls ltr breach ofagreenent for non_ invocation of artltmuor 17.

The respondent has submi$ed that the complaint is not maintainable for the reason thatthe agreement containsan arbitration clause which refe.s to the disput€ resolution mechanism to be adopted by the parties in the event of any dispute. y dispute.

The authority is of the opinion that the ju risdrction of the authority cannot be feftered by the existence ofan arbitration clause in the buyer's agreement as it may be noted that section 79 ofthe Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts about any matter which falls within the puruiew ofthis authority, or the Real EstateAppellate Tribunal.

Thus, the intentiontorendersuchdisputesasnon-arbitrableseemstobeclear.Also, Page 11of17 ffiHARERA P- GURIIGRAN/ ConplaintNo.7372oI2022 section 88 ofthe Act says thatthe provisions ofthis A€t shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

Further, theauthority puts relianceon catena oljudgments oithe Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly in,ryaaioral Seeds Corporatlon Limited v.

M.

Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. (2012) 2 sCC so5, wherein it has been held that the remedies provided underthe Consumer Protection Act ar€ in addition to and not in derogation ol the other laws in force, consequendy the authority would not be bound to rea€r parties to arbitration even iithe agreementtetw€en the part,es had an arbitration clause.

Therefore, by applying same analogy th€ presenc€ of arbitration clausecould not beconsftued to take away thejurisdiction oithe authonty.

18.

Further, in Aftab Singh and ors. vs.

Emaar MGF Land Ltd and o.s., Consumer case no.

701 of 2015 decided on 13.07.2017, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRCI has held that the arbitration clause in agreements betw€en the complainants and builders could not circumscribe the iurisdiction of a consumer.

Further, while cons,dering the issue of malntainability of a complaint before a €onsumer iorum/comnission in the fact ofan existing arbitration clause in the builder buyer agreement, rhe hon'ble supreme court in cose t tled ds M/s Emaor MGF Lond Ltd.

V.

Afrab Slngh ln revbion petition no.

2629' 30/2018 in civit appeal no.23512-23513 of2017 declded on 70.72. on 70.72.207a has upheld the aforesaid judgement of NCDRC and as provided in Article 141olthe Constitut,on oflndia,the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts with,n th€ territory ol India and accordingly, the authority is bound by the aforesaid view.

Therefore, in view of the above judgements and consideringthe provision oftheAct, the authority is ofthe view that complainant is well within his right to seek a special remedy HARERA GURUGRAN/ ComplaintNo.

7372 of 2022 available in a beneficial Act such as the Consumer Protection Act and RERA 4ct,2016 insread ofgoirg in for an arbitration.

Hence,we have no hesiration in holding that this authority has the requisite ju.isdiction to entertain the complaint andthat the dispute does notrequireto be referred to arbirrarion C. rindings on the relietsought by the complainant.

G,l Dire.t the respondent ro refund the paid-up amount atonq-with 19.

The complainant was aUotted a unit bearing no.

706, 7,r, floor, in TowerS, having carpet area oi571.105 sq. ft. along wjth balcony with area ol98 sq. it. in the project of respondent named "Venetian' at Secror 70, CurLrgram unde. the Affordable Housing Policy, 2013 vide auotment letter dated 09.03.2021.

Thereafter builder buyer agre€ment was executed between the both the parties on 14.08.2021 in respect of the subjsct unir.

As per clause 1(ivl ofthe policy of 2013, all projects under the sard policy shall be required to be necessar'ly completed within 4 years from rhe date oi approval of building plans or grant ofenvironmental clearance, whichever is later.

Thus, the possession of the unit was to be offe.ed within 4 years fionr the approval of, building plans (07-02-2020) or irom the date of environment clearance (not obtained yet).

Thereflore, the due date ol possession cannot be ascertained.

As per record, the complainant has pard an amount of Rs.8,83,785/- to.espondent.

Due ro lailure on the p. on the p.rr of the respondent in obtaining environment clearance rrom the concerned authority and inordinate delay on part of the respondent to start construction of the project in question, the complainant has surendered the unit/flar vid.legal norice dated 11.10.2022.

HARERA GURUGRAIU ComplaintNo.

7372 of 2022 20. ln the present matter, the buyer's agreement was executed inter-se parties on 14.08.2021.

As per clause 5.2 talks about the possession ofthe unit to the complainants, the relevant portion is reproduce as under:- "5.2 Poss6sion Time The Cohpany sholl sincerct endeovor to completa the construction on.l oJlet the possfsion ofthe tuid unitwithin lve yedB ltom the .tate ol the receivins ol ticdse ("connim t P*iod'), but vbje.t to fo.ce nojeure clause olthis Aqrenut md tinety poymut ofinstottmdts by th.

A otte.(s).

Hawevet in coe the Conpont conptet* the construction prior to the petod of 5 yers the Allottee shdll lot rai* anr objection in taking the polgnon ofter parment ol mainins sote price and othe. chor06 stipuloir.l in the Aqreenent to sell.

The Canpohr on obtaihing e ilcote for ;c@patioh ohd ue br the Conpeteht Au onties tholl hohd over the eid uhX to the Allottee lor his/hertheir occupation and Lse, subiect to the Atl;&@ hovnp conplied wth all the tetns antl conditiohs olthe sdid Poli.t and Agrenenr to sett ond polhent\ nodc os pe.

Polnent Plan." 21.

The Authority observes that since the respondent/promote. has lunched the project under the Afrordable group housing policy,2013 which was introduce by the state Government on 19.08.2013.

Clause 10v) oi the Affordable Group Housing Policy,2013 clearly mention that all such projects shall be required to be necessarily completedwithin 4 years lmn the approval of bu dtng plons or gmn ol environmental clearotce, whichever is later.

The respondent /promoter is obligated to ad under the provisions of the said pollcy,2013 only.

Therefore, the said possession clause 5. clause 5.2 ofthe buyer's agreementis hereby set-asid€ bytheAuthority and the due date of possession shall b€ calculated as per clause l(lv) of the Affordable croup Housing Policy, 2013.

In the above mentioned cases, ihe even failed to obtain environment clearance from the authority and in vaew of the inordinate delay on part of the respondent to start construction ofthe project in question, the complainant has surrendered the unit/flat. i; ::: HARERA GURUGRAI/ Complaint No.

7372 of 2022 ln the presetrt matter, th€ subje€tunitwas surrendered bythe complainana allottee vide letter dated 13.06.2022 due ro failure on the part of the respondent in obtaining environment clearance and inordinate delay on part of the respondent to start constructaon of the pro,ect and has requested the r€spondent to cancel the allotment and refund the entire amount paid by him alonB with interest.

23.

As per the clause 5 (iir(b) of, the Affordable Housins Policy, 2013 as amended by the State Governmenl on 22.07.2015 provides rhat if the Ucensee fails to get environmental clearance even aiteroneyear olholding draw, the licencee is liable to refund the amo u nt deposited by the applic.rnt along with an interest of 12ol0, if the allortee so desires.

The rele!,anr provision is rep roduced b€low for ready reterence: ''Thellatsth o speciJic pratect sholl be allatted in one so withtn faut narthsal the sonctton albutldlng plons lncan, thenunbetofappli.a o,Jr...ivcd,J/ar tha Lhe nunberolsrctiohed lots, the ollotnenr con be nod phases. ttowever, the licencee will stort the .an$ructi.n onu altet rct t4 .l envnonmentol cleatunce from the conpetent authoriy The licenca will stoft re.eiving the lurthq lnstallnente onu once the ironmentol .leorunce is receive.l, Further, il the ticentee, loit to get nvirontuental cleatunce even after one rea. ol hokrins of .lraw, the licenc.e is lioble to relund the anount deposited br the applicaat otongwith on int te* ol 12ok, ilthe ottottze so .t6irQs.

24.

6irQs.

In this regard, the aulhorily obs€rves that as per clause s[iii)[b) of the Affordable Housing Policy,2013, the licencee was to start receivinS the further installments only once the environmental clearance was receivcd As delineated hereinabove, the respondent has failed to obt.rn environmental clearance till date and thus, js not ent,tled to receive.rny lurther payments.

Hence, the objection raised in this regard by the respondent is devoid ofmerits.

25 Further, as per amendment dated 09.07.2018 in Afrordable Group Hosing Policy, 2013, the.ate oiinterest in case ofdefault shallbe as per rule 15 of ARERA URUGRAIV Complaint No.

7372 of 2022 the Haryana RealEstate (Regulation and Developmeno Rules,2017.

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

Prevnbed rctealintcren [Prcviso ta sectian 12,ection 1a ond sub.section (1) ond slbsettion (7) ol sedion 191 Fot the purpase alproviso to section 12;e.rion 13;ond subiectian\ O) and (7) of secttan 1e, the te.est ot the rote pre{nbea shott be the stote Bonk al lndia highennarqnnl can ollending rute +2% Pnvrded thot in co* the Sbre Bonk oltn.lio norsinot.a!t ollenltns roE lrtCLR) 6 not in uv, x sholl be reploced by such benLhnark lending rotes which the state Bohkoftndia no! lx lran tine ta tine lar tentlin! t. thegenetot public 26.

The legislature in its wisdom in the subordinate legislation under the rule 15 of the rules has determined the prescribed rate oi interest.

The rate of inte.est so determined by the legislature, is reasonable and ifthe sa'd rule is lbllowed to award the interesl it will ensure unilorm practice jn all the 27.

Thus, the complainant-allottee is e.titled to refund of the entire amount deposited along w,th interest at the prescribed rate as per aforesdrd provisions laid down urderAffordable Housing Pohcy, 2013.

28.

2013.

Hence, the respondent/promoter is direcred to refund the cntire panl-up amount as per clause s{iiil(b) of the ofAffordable Housing Policy, 2013 as amended by the State Government on 22.07.2015, along with prescribed .ate olinrerest i.e., @11.100/o p.a- (the State Bankoilndia highest margrnal cost ollending rate (MCLRI applicable as on date +2olol as prescribed under rule 15 or the Haryana Real Estate [Regul:]tion and Development) Rules, 2017lrom the date ofeach payment tillthe actual reaUzation ofthe arnount within the timelines provlded in rule 16 oithe Haryana Rules 2017 ibid.

H.

Directions ofthe authority 29.

Hence, the authority hereby passes this order and issue the tbllowinS directions under section 37 ofthe Act to ensure compliance ofoblgations *HARERA -db- eunuenntr casted upon the promoter as per the functions entrusted to the a under section 34(0 ofthe Act: i.

The respondent is directed to refund theentire paid-up amou clause s(iii)(b) ofthe Affordable Housins Pol,cy,2013 as the State Government on 22.07.2015, along with prescribed interest i.e., @11.10% p.a. as prescribed under rule 15 ofth 2017 from the date oleach payment tillthe actual .ealizatio A period of 90 days is directions given in this 30.

Thisdecis,on shall ii 31.

32.

The complaints Files be consigned to ) (viiayKumar( ,_p Member .61^- lt, . (Arun Kumar) Chairman Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugran Dared:22-r0.2024 W Complaint No.7372 of2 ded by .espondent to comply th the 3of RHH,.iv,- gistry.