COL KANWAR RIPU SAIN JAISWAL AND MEHAK JASWAL vs EMAAR MGF LAND LTD.

ffiHARERA #eunuonnrvr BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Z77O of 2O2l 14.o7 .2021 Complainants Respondent CORAM: Chairntan Member Mcnr ber APPEARANCE: Sh.

Kanish Bangia [Advocate) Sh.

Ishaan Dang (AdvocateJ Respondent ORDER The present complaint has been filed by the comp lai n a nt/allottees under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (ills short, the Act) read with rule 29 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 [in short, the RulesJ for violation of section 11(4)(a) of the Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under thc Date of order Complaint No.

2770 of 2021 13.08.2024 1.

Col Kanwar Ripu Sain laswal 2.

Mehak laswal R/o: H.no.B1-17 First Floor DLF Valley, Sector - 3 Pinjore Kalka Urban Complex Panchkula - 134105 M/S Emaar India Ltd.

Regd.

0ffice: Emaar MGF Business Park, MG Road, Sikanderpur Chowk Sector - 28, Gurugram Shri Arun Kumar Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal Shrl Ashok Sangwan 1.

Page I ol31 Versus HARERA ffi" GURUGRAM Complaint No.

2770 of2021 provision ofthe Act or the rules and regulations made there under or to the allottee as per the agreement for sale executed inter se' A.

Unit and proiect related details: 2.

The particulars of the project, the details of sale consideration' the amount paid by the complainants, date of proposed handing over the possession and delay period, if any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: s.

N.

Particulars Details Emerald Floors Premier, Secto Gurugram, HarYana L.

Name of the project 2.

Total area of the project 2 5.49 acres 3.

Nature of the project Group housing colonY 4 DTCP License no. & validity status 06 of 2008 dated 17.01.2 008 up 1.6.01.2025 Name of Licensee Active Promoters Pvt.

Ltd. and 2 6.

RERA Registered / not registered Registered vide n o.1,62 of 2017 29.08.2017 (For 5 5.962 acresl 7.

RERA registration valid uP to 28.0A. to 28.0A.2022 8.

Unit no.

EFP-O4-0102, 1'r floor [naBe 66 of comdaintl 1650 sq. ft. [page 66 of comPlaint] 27 .07.201-0 [page 69 of replY] 9.

Area of the unit (super area) 10.

Buyer's agreement executed between the original allottee (Remy Sethi) and the respondent on 11.

Possession clause 1L POSSTSSION or 65, o others dated PaBe 2 ol31 HARERA GURUGRAl\4 " the Possession use ond suuect to the 1d with qll the terms ver's AgreemenL, ond any of the Provisions ond compliance with , documentotion etc npanY, the ComPanY possession of Lhe llniL he dqte oJ execution -he Allottee(s) ogrees E Compony sholl be of three months, Jor ng the completion certificote in resPecl tject. [emphasis suppliedJ from the date of agreement plus iod J ,greement -dated 1 125 of reply) re complainants allottee, the vere endorsed in )nt in terms of 2011.

Thereafter, ;ued nomination complainant no.1 146 of reply). complainant no.2 lottee vide letter per page 133 of d 14.07.2021. at Complaint No. of 2021. (o) Time olhonding over th Subjectto terms ofthis clquse Allottee(s) hoving comPlied I ond conditions of this BuYer not being in defoult under an- of this Buyer's Agreement ont all provisions, formolities, dt os prescribed by the ComPC proposes to hqnd over the Po! $tithin 36 months from the of buyer's agreement.

The ond understands that the I entitled to a grdce period of t applying and obtaining certilicate/ occupation cet of the Unit ond/or the Projec Ier [page 84 of reply] 12.

Due date of possession 27.04.2013 (Calculated 36 months execution of buyer's r three months grace Per 13.

Complainants subsequent allottees are ln pursuance of Sale Ag 08.03.20I1 (page 1 executed between th( and the oriSinal complainants'name w the buyer's agreemer affidavit dated 08,03.2 the respondent has isst letter in favour ofthe c on 24.03.2011 (Page 1 Note: Thc name of cr was added as co-allo dated 28.08.2020 as I reply 74.

Total consideration Rs. ration Rs.72,19,387 /' (as per the SOA date page 123 of reply) Page 3 of31 HARERA GURUGRA[/ 15.

Total amount paid by the complainant no.

1 Rs.7 2,26,135 / - fas per SOA dated L4.07 .2021. at pag 123 of reply) L6.

0ccupation certificate on 0 5.03.2019 [page 51 of reply] 17.

Offer of possession to complainant no.1 t3.02.2020 [Page 167 of reply] 18 Unit handover letter dated to both the complainants L8.09.2020 [page 174 of reply] 19.

Conveyance deed executed on 30.10.2020 [Page 178 of reply] 20.

Delay compensation paid by the respondentin terms of the buyer's agreement Rs.9,67 ,542 I - (Rs.6,73,a7 7l- + Rs.2,9 4,07'r I ') (as per SOA dated 14.07.2021. at 123 ofreply) C agc B.

Facts of the complaint: 3.

The complainants have made the following submissions in the complalnL: i That in the year 2009, the respondent company issuccl att advertisement announcing a group housing colony project called 'Emerald Estate Apartments' situated at Sector 65, Gurugram, Haryana, where the original allottee paid an amount of Rs 5,00,000/- dated 08.10.2009 and was acknowledged by the respondent vide statement of account dated 29.05.2027 and accordingly filled the application form for one flat/unit and opted for lump sum payment plan.

The original allottee was allotted one unit bearing no.

EFP-04- 0102 in the above said prolect.

Complaint No.

2770 of 2021 Page 4 ol31 Complaint No.

2770 of 2021 lll HARERA ffiGURUGRAI/ tl.

That the original allottee made lwo payments of Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.4,50,000/- vide cheque no.

L77224 and 109167 dated 19,11.2009 and lump sum payment of Rs.54,60,074/- vide cheque no.383258 dated 02.72.2009 which was acknowledged by the respondent vidc statement of account dated 29.05.2021 and the original allottee .e., Mrs.

Remy Sethi received allotment letter on 25.11.2009.'lhc respondent executed the builder buyer agreement dated 27.07. ted 27.07.201-0 after taking more than 70% of the basic sale price of the unit entrapping the original allottqg i1 the web of lies and false promises.

That the complainants executed a nomination letter dated 24.03 201 1 allotting the said unit no.EFP:04-0102 from the original allottee i.e., Ms.

Remy Sethi.

The complainants made a payment of HVA'I' of lls.

68,881/- which was acknowledged by the respondent vide statemenI ofaccount dated 29.05.

2021.The respondent have credited an amount ofRs.

5,953.00 and Rs.

11,949/- on the account of anti-profiting, which was acknowledged by the respondent. lv.

That the complainants have received two payments ol l\s 6,73,471 l' and of Rs.2,581.00 dated 13,02.2020 respectively on account ol dole)' compensation on IOP and EPR, which was acknowledgcd by tho respondent vide statement of account dated 29.05 2021. 'lhc respondent has credited an amount of Rs.

24,682.0 0 dated 1 ll.0 2 2 02 0, which was acknowledged by the respondent vide statement of accou n t dated 29.05.2019. v.

That the complainants received the letter of offer o[ possession on 13.02.2020 in which they have annexed a list of additional payments to be made before taking delivery of the unit.

The complainants received an indemnity-cum-undertaking dated 05.03.2020 for the possession oftheir unit no.

EFP-04-102.

The respondent have credited PaBe 5 of31 ffiHARERA *e. cIRIGRAM an amount of Rs.2,94,071.00' d,ated 02.04 2020 respectively on account of delay compensation on IOP, which was acknowledged by the respondent vide statement of account dated 2905'2021 Thc statement of accounts reflects the CAM adiustment of Rs 69'300 00' dated 14.04.2020 which was acknowledged by the respondent vide statement of account dated 29.05.2021 and an adjustment o[ Rs.5,900.00, dated 06.07.2020 which was acknowledged by the respondent vide statement of account dated 29 05 2021' vi.

That the complainants received an allotment letter dated 28 08 2020 For the unit no. e unit no.

EEP-04-102 fdf the name addition of the co-applicant The complainants received a unit handover letter on 1U 9 2020 'lhc statement of account reflecis the collection adjustment ofRs 5'900 00' dated: 06.07.2020 which was acknowledged by the respondent vide statement of account dated 29 05 2021. vii.

That the complainants received a conveyance deed on i10 10 2020 The respondent asking for interest free maintenance security as the maintenance securiry is also illegal and amounts to unjust enrichnrcllL depriving the complainants of a huge loss of interest on a sunr of Rs' 82,500/- which condition was never a part of the buyer agreemenI viii.

The complainants kept pursuing the matter with the reprcsenLatlvcs of the respondent as to when will they deliver the project and why construction is going on at such a slow pace, but to no avail C.

Relief sought by the complainant: Complaint No.

2770 of 2021 4.

The complainants have sought following relief[s): l.

Direct the respondent to pay delayed possession chargcs on the cntirc amount paid from due date of possession till actual posscssion is delivered.

Page 6 of 31 HARERA ffiGURUGRAI/ II.

Direct the respondent to remit back the amount charged on account of fixed deposit of HVAT, advance monthly maintenance charges for a period of 12 months and interest free maintenance securify.

III.

Direct the respondent to not to ask for any charges which is nor as per the buyer agreement.

D.

Reply by respondent: 5.

The respondent by way of written reply made following submissions: That the present complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts.'fho provisjons ofthe Real Estate (Regulation and Developntent) Acr, 2016 are not applicable to the proiect in question.

The appljcatjon for issuance of occupatlon certificate in respect of the project in qucstj0n was made on 29.06.201,7, i.e. well before the notification oI thc Haryana Real Estate Regulation and Development Rules 2017. ules 2017. 'lhc occupation certificate has been thereafter issued on 05.03.2019 'lhus, the project in question Emerald Plaza, Sector 65, Gurgaon is not an '0ngoing Project" under Rule 2(11(ol of the Rulcs.

That the complainants are not an "Allottee" but an investor w,ho havc booked the apartment in question as a speculative investmeut in o rdcr to earn rental income/profit from its resale.

The apartment in q uestioll has been booked bythe complainants as a speculattve investm en r and not for the purpose of self-use as a residence.

That the original allottee i.e., Ms.

Remy Sethi had booked thc unir in question, bearing number EFP-04-0102, in the project "Enrerald Floors Premier", Sector 65, Gurugram, Haryana vide application l'orm dated 07.10.2009 and Subsequently, parries executed a buycr's agreement dated 2 7 .0 1,.20 10. l1 lll Complaint No.

277 0 of 2021 Page 7 oi 31 HARERA GURUGRAN/ Complaint No.

2770 oF 2021 That the original allottee Ms.

Remy Sethi had defaulted in terms and conditions of the buyer's agreement by doing default in timely remittance of the amounts due and payable by her to the respondent which was an indispensable requirement under the buyer's agreement.

Somewhere in the year 2011, complainant no.1 approached the original allottee for purchasing her rights and title in the unit in question.

The original allottee acceded to the request of thc complainant no.1 and agreed to transfer and convey her rights, entitlement and title in the unit in question in their favour. nn agreement to sell dated 08.03.2011 was executed by the original allottee with the complainant no.1.

It needs to be highlighted thar the respondent, at the time of endorsement of the unit in question in favour of the complainants, had specifically indicated to complainant no,1 that being the assignee/nominee of the originai allottcc and having purchased the unit in question in resale, he would not be entitled to any compensation for delay, if any, in delive ry of posscssio n ofthe o n ofthe unit in question.

Itwas conveyed to complainant no 1 that lhc original allottee had defaulted in timely remittance oI thc sa]c consideration and has, consequently, disentitled herself from any compensation.

The said position was duly accepted and acknowlcdgcd by complainant no.1.

The complainant no.2 had bcen added as a co- allottee on account of natural love and affection.

No ri8hL, Litlc or interest can be asserted by complainant no Z against the resporrdcut which cannot be claimed by complainant no 1.

Vide nomination lettcr dated 28.08.2020 issued by the respondent. v.

That as per clause 11 ofthe buyer's agreement dated 27.01.2010 thc time period for delivery ofpossession was 36 months along with gracc period of 3 months from the date of execution of the buyer's Page I ol31 HARERA ffiGURUGRAN/ agreement subject to the allottee(s) having strictly complicd wiLh all terms and conditions of the buyer's agreement and not being in dcfault of any provision of the buyer's agreement including remittance of all amounts due and payable by the allottee(s) under the agreement as per the schedule of payment incorporated in the buyer's agrccrnc1lt The complainants have completely misconstrued, nljsintcrpreted arrd miscalculated the time period as determined in the buycr's agrecmen t It is pertinent to mention that it was categorically providcd in clttLtse 11tb)(iv) that in case ofany default/delay by the allottecs in paynrent as per schedule ofpayment incorporated in the buyer's agreement' tllc date of handing over of possession shall be extended accordingli'' solely on the respondent's discretion till the payment of all outstanding amounts to the satjsfaction of the respondent vi.

That without prejudice to the contentions of the rcspondclt' 1l is submitted that the present complaint is barred by lirritation 'lhe complainants have alleged that the possession of the unit was to ltc given not later than 2013 and therefore cause of action' if any' accrued in favour of th vour of the complainants in 2013 'fhus, the conlplaint secking interest as a form of indemnification for the alleged delay is barred b1' limitation.

That without admitting or acknowledging in any manner thc trtrth or legality of the allegations levelled by the complainants and wilhoul prejudice to the contentions ofthe respondent, it is submitted that thc proJect has got delayed on account of the following reasons wl]icl] were/are beyond the power and control of the respondent: Complaint No.

2770 of 2021 vtl.

I.

Second staircase issue: a) The building Plans for the approved bY the competent apartment/tower in question was authority under the then applicablc Page 9 oi 31 HARERA GURUGRAM National Building Code in terms of which buildings having height of LSmtrs or above but having area of less than 500 sq mtrs on each floor, were being approved by the competent authorities with a single staircase and construction was being carried out accordinBly b) Subsequently, the National Building Code (NBC) was revised in the year 20L6 and in terms of the same, all high rise buildings [i tr buildings having height of 15 mtrs and aboveJ, irrespective of thc area of each floor, are now required to have two stair cascs cJ Furthermore, it was notified vide Gazette published on 15 03 20l 7 that the provisions of NBC 2016 supersedes those of NBC 2005 Notification dated L5.03.20L7 dJ The fire department is seeking to retrospectively apply thc sard provision and while processing the Fire NOC application has hccn insisting on two stair cases in all high rise buildings even in cascs where the building plans stood approved with a provision lor ;t single staircase and which have been constructed according)v 'l'hc fire department has issued a provisional Fire N0C u'ith lhc requirement that the second staircase would be constructed by thc developer within one year from the date of issuancc of thc provisional Fire NOC.

Fire NOC. eJ In view of the practical difficulties in constructing a sccond staircase in a building that already stands constructed according to duly approved plans, the respondent made several representations to various Government Authorities requesting that thc requirement of a second staircase in such cases be dispensed with It was pointed out by the respondent that construction of a second stair case would not be possible for several technical reasons such as obstruction of Fire tender path, violation ofthe set back norms' complaint No.

2770 of 2021 Page 10 of 31 HARERA MGURUGRAM violation of fire safety norms in as much as the second staircase would not be connected to the common lobby area and that construction of second staircase by connecting balconies of thc dwelling units would pose a securiry and privacy conccrn.'fhe respondent had also pointed out that the allottees of thc dwclling units were also eagerly awaiting possession of their units sincc long and requested that the Fire NOC be issued without any pre conditions.

I The fire department inspected the site of the proiect and soughL alternate proposals from the respondent to meet the requiren)cnt of second staircase in the buildings in question. 'fhc respondcnL accordingly submitted various proposals to the Firc Departmcrrr g] Eventually, so as not to cause any further delay in thc project and so as to avoid jeopardising the safety of the occupaDls of thc buildings in question including the building in which the apartmcnt in question is situated, The respondent has taken a decision to go ahead and construct the second staircase, In fact, the respondcnL has completed the construction thereof and obtained Ihc occupation certificate on 05.03.2019 Il.

Defaults of Contractor: a] That a contract dated 01.11.2010 was executed betwecn thc respondent and M/s B L Kashyap and sons (BLK/Contracto r) irl terms of which the contractor was to construcL residcntral projects being developed by the respondent in the na in the name and style of "Emerald Estate" and "Emeraid Floors Prcnricr', including civil, structure, finishing, MEP, external dcvclopment, infrastructure, horticulture, EWS, clubhouses, swimming pools, convenience shopping etc.

The start date of the proiect as Complaint No.

2770 ol 2021, Pagc '11 ol3'l HARERA ffi.

GURUGRAV] determined by the parties was 26 July 2010 and the schedulcd date of completion of the project was 2 5 luly 2 01 3. b) That the contractor was not able to meet the agrced timclines for construction of the project.

The progress of work at thc project site was extremely slow on account of various defaults on the part ofthe contractor, such as failure to deploy adequate manpower, shortage of materials etc. in this rcgard, [hc respondent made several requests to the contractor to expedtte progress of the work at the project sitc. llowever, the contrircLor did not adhere to the said requests and the work at thc sitc canrc to a standstill. c) That in the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent uras constrained to issue Notice of Termination dated 1601.2015, terminating the contract and calling upon the conIraclor to remove itself from the project site without removal/ damagc to the materials, equipments, tools, plant & machincry, and Lo hand over the contract docu ments. dJ That the respondent apprehended that the contractor would remove from the project site, material, tools, plant & machincry which would then not be available to the respondenl lor ttsc lor' completion of the prolect in terms o[ clause 95.1 I(iCCJ of thc contract.

Therefore, the respondent filed a perioon bearing no.

O.M.P.

No.

100 of 2015 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Hon'ble High Court secking urgent reliefs in the nature of restraining the contractor from interfering with the business activities of the petitioner at thc project site, removing any material, equipment, tools, plant & machinery from the project site and appointing a local C a local Complaint No.

2770 o12021 Iragc 12 of31 ffi HARERA ffieunuennu commissioner to inspect the project site and prepare arl inventory of material, equipment, tools, plant & machinery e) However, the parties settled the disputes during thc peldency of the aforesaid proceedings and the contractor assurcd the respondent that the project shall be completed within thc' decided timeline.

This was considered to be in the interest ol the project as well as to mitigate losses, since considerablc tinrc would have been spent in re-tendering of the works I"urthcr, Lhr: contractor had also undertaken to complete the prolect lviLhrrr the agreed timelines i.e. within eighteen (181 months 0 That in spite of the aforementioned settlement betwecn thc respondent and the contractor, and with thc contraclor's assurances that the project will be finished within the agrc('d timeline, the contractor did not amend its ways, and persistcntly defaulted in meeting the agreed timelines for completiorr ol lhc project. g) That in the meanwhile, the National Building Code (NBC) was revised in the year 2016 and in terms of the same, all high rLs'r buildings (i.e buildings having height ot 15 mtrs and abovcJ' irrespective of the area of each floor, are now required to havc two stair cases.

Furthermore, it was notificd vide Cazcttc published on 15.03.2017 that thc provisions of NII(l 2016 supersedes those ofNBC 2005 The respondent had accorclingll' sent representations to various authorities idcntilyirrg tht: problems in constructing a second staircase [ventually, so as lo not cause any further delay in the prolect and so as to avoirl jeopardising the safery of the occupants of the buildings irt question, the respondent had taken a decision to go ahcad and Complaint No.

2770 ol 2021 Page 13 ol3.l ffiLTARERA ffi eunuenRvt construct the second staircase.

However, due to the impending contractor i.e. actor i.e., BL Kashyap issue of non-performance, the construction ofthe second staircase could not be started as well. h) That in view of the above, the respondent was constrained to terminate the contract with the contractor vide termination notice dated 30.8.2018.

After termination of the contract, the respondent filed a petition against the contractor before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court seeking interim protection against thc contractor so that the contractor does not, inter alia, disturb thc possession and work at the site.

Similar petition was also lilcd by the contractor against the respondent. i] That the aforesaid rwo petitions, along with two other petitiolls pertaining to a different contract came up for hcaring olr 6" of September 2018.

The Hon'ble High Court by order dated 6th ol September 2018 disposed of the said cases and issued sevcral directions.

The Hon'ble High Court appointed lusticc A P Shah (Retd) as the Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of drspuIes between the respondent and the contractor.

I"urthermorc, RITES Ltd (a Government Undertaking) was appointed as Lh(' Local Commissioner to inter alia, inspect and take joint measurement of work done and balance to bc done and filc fts report before the Sole Arbitrator.

The Iligh Court gavc llbcrty to the respondent to award the contract to new agency (ies) [or- completing the remaining work.

However, it was directed that the prolect site shall be handed over to such new agency with the permission of the Sole Arbitrator. jl That the arbitration proceedings titled as B L Kashyap and Sons Vs Emaar MGP Land Ltd [arbitration case number 1 of 2018J Complaint No.

277 0 ol 2027 Page 14 ol31 HARERA P- GURUGRAM before Iustice A P Shah (Retd), Sole Arbitrator have been initiated.

The hon'ble Arbitrator vide order d ated 27 .04.2079 gave liberty to the Respondent to appoint another contractor w.e I 15.05.2019. viii.

019. viii.

That it needs to be highlighted that the respondent had applied to thc statutory authority for grant of occupatio n certificate in respect of the tower in which the unit in question is located was applied on 29.06.20f7 and the same was granted on 05.03.2019. 'Ihc complainants were offered polsession of the unit in question through Ietter ofoffer ofpossession dated 13.02.2020.The complainants were called upon to remit balance payment including delayed paynrcnt charges and to complete the necessary formali[ies/d ocumen LaLron necessary for handover of the unit in question to them.

Ilowcver, the complainants consciously refrained from obtaining possession of thc unit in question for reasons best known to them.

That after needlessly delaying the matter, the conlplalnar)[s approached the respondent requesting it to deliver thc posscssron ol the unit in question.

A unit handover letter dated 18.09.2020 rvas executed by the complainants, specifically and expressly agreeing that the Iiabilities and obligations ofthe respondent as enumerated in the allotment letter or the buyer's agreement stand satisfied.

That it is pertinent to mention that after execution of the unit handover letter dated L8.09.2020 and obtaining of possession of thc unit in question, the complainants are left with no right, entitlcmcnt or claim against the respondent.

It needs to be highlighted that thc complainants have further executed a conveyance deed bearing on 30.10.2020 in respect ofthe unit in question.

The transaction between Complaint No.

2??0 of 2027 lx.

Page 15 ol31 x.

Complaint No 2770 of 2021 or liability can be asserted by the respondent or the complainant xl xll HARERA GUl?UGRA[/ the complainants and the respondent stands concluded and no right against the other.

The instant complaint is a gross misuse of process of law.

That clause 18 of the buyer's agreement provides that the complainants are liable to pay IFMS. pay IFMS.

Clause 18(h) of the buyer's agreement specifically provides that the allottees are liable to pay maintenance charges at the time of offer of possession.

That it is submitted that the reliefs sought by the complainants can not be granted in contravention of the conveyance deed and indemnity cum undertaking executed by the complainants.

The complainants have omitted to impugn the said conveyance deed and the indcnlnrLy cum undertaking mentioned hereinabove. ln absence of any challcngc to the legality and validity of the aforesaid documents, the complainI preferred by the complainants is not legally maintainablc.'l hc instant complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed at thc threshold. xiii.

That it needs to be highlighted that the respondent has paid an amoun t of Rs.17,9021- as benefit on account ofAnti-Profitlng and lls.

2,581/- on account of early payment rebate.

Furthernlore, an amount oi Rs.9,67,542/- has been credited by the respondent to the account ol the complainants as a gesture of goodwill, All other averments made in the complaint were denied in toto.

Copies of all the relevant documents have been filed and placed on record Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be dented on the basis of these undisputed documents and submissions made by the parties.

E. lurisdiction of the authority: 6.

7.

Page 16 ol31 ffiF]AREIA #" eunuonRvt B.

The authority observes that it has territorial as well as subject matter lurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for the reasons given below' E.

I Ter torial iurisdiction As per notification no.1/92 /2017 -ITCP dated 14.12.2017 issued by'Iown and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real Iistiitc Regulatory Authorily, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with offices situated in Gurugram ln the present case, the project in question is situated within the planning area of Gurugram district' 'l'herefore, this authority has complete territorial iurisdtc l iurisdtction to dcal with the present complaint.

E.

II Subject matter iurisdiction Section 11(4)(aJ of the Act, 2016 provides that the promotcr shall bc responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale Section 11[4)(a) is reproduced as hereunder: Section 77(4)(o) Be responsible for alt obligations, responsibilities and functions Ltntler the provisions of this Act or the rules ond regulotions mode thereuntler or Lo the ollottees os per the agreement for sole, or to the associotion of ollotLees' os Lhe case moy be, till the conveyonce of oll the qpartments' plots or builtlings' as the cose moy be, to the ollottees' orthe common oreos to the ossocioLrcn olollalLees or the competent authoriEt, qs the case may be; Section 34-Functions of the Authority: 34A of the Act provides to ensure complionce of the obligotions cosL upon the promoter, the allottees and the reol estote agents under this Act ond the rules and regulations made thereunder- 9.

So, in view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, the authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliancc ol obligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to bc Page 17 of31 HARERA ffi"GURUGRAI\4 complaint No.

2770 o12021 decided by the adjudicating officer ifpursued by the complainants at a latcr stage.

F.

Findings on the obiections raised by the respondent F.l Obiection regarding the respondent has made an application tor grant of occupation certificate before coming into force of RERA ' 10.

The respondent-promoter has raised the contention that the provisions oI the Act of 2076, are not applicable to the project as the rcspondcnL hns already applied for obtaining occupation certificate from the conlpctcllt authority on 29-06.2017 i.e., before the notification oI the Act and [he ru]cs made thereunder.

As per proviso to section 3 of Act o f 20I 6, onSoing pr olccls on the date of commencement of this Act i e., 01.05. e., 01.05.2017 and for rvhich completion certificate has not been issued, the promoter shall make an application to the authority for registration o[ the said proiect within a period of three months from the date of commencement of rh is Act and thc relevant part of the Act is reproduced hereunder: - Provided thot projects that are ongoing on the date of camnlet)ccn)enl ofthis Act ond Jorwhich the completion certifrcate hos not been $sued' the promoter sholl make an opplication to the Authority for relltstrotton of the said proiect within o period of three months fronl Lhe date al commencement of this Act: 11.

The legislation is very clear in this aspect that a project shali bc regardcd as "ongoi ng project" until receipt of completion certi[icate Since, no corlrplcllolr certificate was obtained by the promoter-builder lvith rcgards to thc concerned project, the plea advanced by it is hereby reiected' F.ll Objection regarding maintainability of complaint on accounI ol complainants being investor.

12.

The respondent took a stand that the complainants areinvestorand not consumers and therefore, he js not entitled to the pro[ection of thc Act arr(l thereby not entitled to file the complaint under section 31 ol the Act Page l8 ol3'l HARERA ffiGURUGRAM Complaint No.

2770 of 2021 However, it is pertinent to note that any aggrieved person can file a complaint against the promoter if he contravenes or violates any provisio ns of the Act or rules or regulations made thereunder.

Upon careful perusal of all the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, it is revealed that thc complainants are buyer's, and complainant no.1 has paid a total price of Rs.72,26,735/- to the promoter towards purchase of a unit in rts project.

At this stage, it is important to stress upon the definition of term allottee u nder the Act, the same is reproduced below for ready reference: "2(d) "qllottee" in relotion to o reol estqte projectmeons the person to whom a plot apartment or building, os th ing, os the case moy be, hos been olloLted, sold (whether osfreehold or leasehold) or otherwise tronsferred by the promoter, qnd includes the person who subsequently ocquires the soid allotment through sole, transler or otherwise but does not include o person Lo whom such ploC apqrtment or building, as the cose moy be, is given on rent;" 13. ln view of the above-mentioned definition of "allottee" as well as all the terms and conditions of the buyer's agreement executed between promoter and complainants, it is crystal clear that the complainants are allottee(s) as the subject unit was allotted to them by the promoter. 'l'he conccpt of investor is not defined or referred to in the Act.

As per the definition grven under section 2 of the Act, there will be "promoter" and "allottcc" and therc cannot be a party having a status of "investor".

Thus, the contention of thc promoter that the allottee being investor are not entitled to proteclion ol t his Act also stands rejected.

UI Whether the complainants are entitled for delay possession charges after execution of conveyance deed 14, ']'he respondent stated that the complainants have allcgcd that thc possession of the unit was to be given not later than 2013 and thcrcforc cause of action, if any, accrued in favour of the complainants in 201 3.

1 he Page 19 of31 HARERA ffiGURUGRAM Complaint No.

2770 of 2021 counsel for the respondent also stated at bar that the conveyance deed of the unit has already been executed in favour ofthe complainants on 30 10.2020' The transaction betlveen the parties stands concluded upon the execution of conveyance deed.

15.

It has been contended by the respondent that on execution of conveyance deed, the relationship between both the parties stands concluded and no right or liabilities can be asserted by the respondent or the complainants against the other.

Therefore, the complainants are estopped from claiming any interest in the facts and circumstances oI the case, 16. case, 16.

It is important to look at the definition of the term 'deed' itself in ordcr ttl understand the extent ofthe relationship between an allottee aId pronroter' A deed is a written document or an instrument that is sealed, signcd antl delivered by all the parties to the contract [buyer and seller) lt is a contractual document that includes Iegally valid terms and is enforceable in a court of law.

It is mandatory that a deed should be in writing and both the parties involved must sign the document.

Thus, a convcyancc dccd is essentially one wherein the seller transfers all rights to legally own, kecp an d enjoy a particular asset, immovable or movable ln this case, the assci\ rrndor' consideration are immovable property.0n signing a conveyance dced, thc original owner transfers all legal rights over the property in question to thc buyer, against a valid 'consideration fusually monetary).

Therefore, a 'conveyance deed'or'sale deed'implies that the seller signs a document stating that all authority and ownership of the property in question has been transferred to the buyer.

17.

From the above, it is clear that on execution ofa sale/ conveyance deed, only the title and interest in the said immovable property (herein the allotted unit] is transferred.

However, the conveyance deed does not concludc thc relationship or marks an end to the liabilities and obligations of the Page 20 of31 MHARERA HGURUGRAM promoter towards the said unit whereby the right, title and interest has been transferred in the name ofthe allottee on execution ofthe conveyance dccd.

18.

The allottees have invested their hard-earned money and there is no doubt that the promoter has been enjoying benefits of and the next step is to get their title perfected by executing a conveyance deed which is the statutory right of the allottee.

Also, the obligation of the developer - promoter does not end with the execution of a conveyance deed. ance deed.

The essence and purpose of the Act was to curb the menace created by the developer/promoter and safeguard the interests of the allottees by protecting them from bcing exploited by the dominant position ofthe developer which he thrusts on the innocent allottees.

Therefore, in furtherance to the Hon'ble Apcx Court judgement and the Iaw laid down in case titled as Wg.

Cdr' Arifur Rohmon Khan ond Aleya Sultana and Ors.

Vs, DLF Southern Homes Pvt' Ltd (now Known as BEGIJR OMR Homes Pvt.

Ltd.) and Ors. (Civil appeal no.

6239 of 2079) doted 24.08.2020, the relevant paras are reproduced herein helow: "34 The developer has not dispuud these communicotions I houllh thesc ore four communicotions issued by the developer' Lhe appellanLs suhlntned thot they are not isolated oberrotions but iit into o pdttern T he develope r does not state thqt itu)as willing to olfer the flat purchasers pa.tses.trorl rf their Jtots and the right to execute conveyonce of the flots while reservtng their cloim lor compensotion for deloy 0n Lhe contrary, the tenor oj tl)e communicqtions indicotes thot while executing the DeeLls ol Convey0nte, the flat buyers were inJormed thot no form of protest or reservutton would be acceptable.

The flat buyers were essentially presented vnith on unfoir choice of either retoining theit right to pursue their cloims (tn which event they would not get possession or title in the meontime) or to forsake the cloims in order to perfect their title to the Jlots for which they hod poid valuobte considerotion. tn this bocktlrop, the sintple quesLtott which we need to oddress is whether a Jlot buyer who seeks Lo espouse u cloim against the developer for deloyecl posses.sior con .ls o aonsequetlce Complarnt No 2770 of 2021 Page 21 of 3l HARERA ffiGURUGRAM of doing so be compelled to dekr the right to obtoin o conveyonce Lo perfect their title. eir title. lt would, in our view, be monifestly unreasonoble to expect that in order to pursue o cloim for compensotion Ior delayecl handing over of possession, the purchaser must tndefinitely dclct obtoining a conveyonce of the premises purchasecl ot, if Lhey seek to obtuin a Deed ofConveyonce to forsake the right to claim compensoLion This basically is a position which the NCDRC hos espoused We c1nnoL countenance thot view.

35.

The flqt purchosers invested hord eorned money. lL is only rcosonable to presume that the next logical step is fot the purchoser ta perfecL Lhe LiLla to the premiseswhich have been allotted under the terms of the AIIA IlLtl the submission olthe developer is that the purchoser forsakes Lhe remedy before the consumer Jorum by seeking a Deed of Conveyance 'fa occept such o constructionwould leod to qn obsurd consequence oI requiring the purchaser either to abondon q just claim as o condition t'or obtoining thc conveyonce or to indefinitely deloy the execution ol the Deed of Conveyonce pending protrocted consumer litigotion." 19.

The authority has already taken a view in in Cr no.4031/2019 and others tiled as Varun Gupta V/s Emoar MGF Ldnd Limited and others and observed that the execution of a conveyance deed does not conclude the relationship or marks an end to the liabilities and obligations of Lhc promoter towards the subject unit and upon taking possession, and/or executing conveyance deed, the complainants never gave up his statutory right to seek delayed possession charges as per the provisions of thc said Act.

20.

After consideration of all the facts and circumstances, the authority holds that even after execution ofthe conveyance deed, the complainants allottces cannot be precluded from his right to seek delay possession charges from the respondent-promoter.

F.lV Whether the complaint is barred by limitation or not?

2770 of 2021 Page 22 ol31 WHARERA ffieunuennlr 21. uennlr 21.

So far as the issue oflimitation is concerned, the Authority is cognizant of thc view that the law of limitation does not strictly apply to the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act of 2016.

However, the Authority under section 38 of the Act of 2016, is to be guided by the principle of natural justice.

It is a universally accepted maxim and the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights.

Therefore, to avoid opportunistic and frivolous litigation a reasonable period of time needs to be arrived at for a litigant to agitate his right.

This Authoriry is of the view that three years is a reasonable time period for a litigant to initiate litigation to press his rights under normal circumstances.

However, this shall not apply to the provisions of section 14 where specific period has already been defined.

It is also observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its ordcr datcd 100L.2022 in MA NO.

2L of 2022 of Suo Moto Writ Petihon Civil No' 3 of 2020 have held that the period from 15.03 2020 to 28 02 2022 shall stand excluded for purpose of limitation as maybe prescribed under any gencral or special Iaws in respect ofall iudicial or quasi-judicial proceedings In the present matter the cause ofaction arose on 13 02 202 0 when thc o tler of possession was made by the respondent to the conlplainants 'lhc complainants have filed the present complaint on 1,4 07 '2021 ln the present matter the three year period of delay in filing of the case also atter takin,l into account the exclusion period from 15 03.202 0 to 28 02 2022 would [all on 26.01.2025.1n view of the above, the Authority is of the view that thc present complaint has been filed within a reasonable period of tinle and is not barred by the limitation.

G.

Findings on the relief sought by the complainants: G.I Direct the respondent to pay balance amount due to the complainants from the respondent on account of interest' PaBe 23 ot 31 22.

23.

Compla,nt No. pla,nt No.

2770 012021 HARERA GURUGRA[/ The complainants intend to continue with the project and are seeking delay possession charges as provided under the proviso to section 18(1) of the Act.

Sec.

18[1J proviso reads as under. "Section 18: - Return ofamount and compensation 1B(1).

If the promoter fails to complete or is unoble to give possession olan aportmenE plot or building, - Provided thotwhere qn allottee does not intend to withdrow frotn Lhe prolecL, he shct ll be paid, by the promoter, interestfor every month of delay, till the handing over of Lhe possession, at such rote os may be prescribed." 25.

Clause 11 of the buyer's agreement provides the time period of hand ing over possession and the same is reproduced below: "Clause 11 (a) Time ofhanding over the possession Subject to terms ofthis clause ond subject to the Allottee(s) having compliedwith all theterms and conditions ofthis Buyer's Agreement, ond not being in defoult under ony of the prowsions of this tsuyer's Agreement ond complionce with oll provisions, formoltttes, documentotion etc. os prescribed by the Compony, Lhe Company proposes to hand over the possession of the Unit within 36 months from the date of execution of buyer's agreement.

The ALlottee(s) agrees ond understonds that the Compony sholl be entitled Lo o grace period of three months, for opplying dnd obtoining the comPletion certificate/ occupotion certifcote in respect oI the Unit on{l/ot the Project.

26.

Admissibility of grace period: The promoter has proposed to hand over the possession of the unit within a period of 36 months from the datc ol execution of buyer's agreement.

The buyer's agreement was executed on 27.01.201.0 .Further, it was provided in the buyer's agreemen t that company Complaint No.

2770 ot 2021 Page 24 ol31 HARERA MGURUGRAI/ Complaint No. plaint No.

2770 of 2021 shall be entitled to a grace period ofthree months, for applying and obtaining the completion certificate/ occupation certificate in respect of the unit and/or the project.

27.

The Authority put reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal in appeal no.433 of2022 tilted as Emaar MGF Lamd Limited Vs Babia Tiwari and Yogesh Tiwari, wherein it has been held that if the allottee wishes to continue with the project, he accepts the term of the agreement regarding grace period of three months for applying and obtaining the occupation certific vant para is reproduced below: As per section 78 oI the Act, iI the project ol the promoter is deloyed ond if the allottee wishes to withdrow then he hos the option to withdrqw from the project and seek refund of the omount or if the ollottee does not intend to utithdrow from the project ond wishes to continue with the project, the allottee is to be paid interest by the promoter Ior eoch month of the delay. ln our opinion if the allottee wishes to continue with the project, he occepLs the term of the agreement regarding groce period ofthree monthsfor opplying ond obtaining the occupation certificqte.

So, in view of the obove soid circumstonces, the oppellont'promoter is entitled to ovoil the grace period so provided in the ogreementfor applying and obtoining the Occ up a tion Ce rtificote.

Therefore, in view ofthe above judgement and considering the provisions of the Act, the authority is ofthe view that, the promoter is entitled to avail the grace period so provided in the agreement for applying and obtaining the occupation certificate.

Thus, the due date of handing over of possession comes out to be 27 .04,2013.

Admissibility ofdelay possession charges at prescribed rate ofinterest: The complainants are seeking delay possession charges at the prescribed rate of interest on the amount already paid by them.

However, proviso to Ltt.

29.

Page 25 of 31 ffiHARERA e eunuennrrl complaint No. plaint No.

2770 of 2021 section 18 provides that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of possession, at such rate as may be prescribed and it has been prescribed under rule 15 of the rules.

Rule 15 has been reproduced as under: Rule 75.

Presc bed rate oI interest- [Proviso to seclion 72, section 78 and sub-section (4) and subsection (7) olsection 19 (7) For the purpose of proviso to section 12; section 1B; and sub-sections (4) and (7) olsection 19, the "interest ot the rate prescribed" shctll be the State Bonk of lndia highest marginal cost of lending rote +2ak : Provided thot in case the State Bonk of lndia mqrginol cost of lending rote {MCLR) is not in use, itshall be reploced by such benchmark lending rates which the Stqte tsank of India moy lix from time to me for Iending to the general public.

30.

The Iegislature in its wisdom in the subordinate legislation under the provision of rule 15 of the rules, has determined the prescribed rate of interest.

The rate ofinterest so determined by the legislature, js reasonable and if the said rule is followed to award the interest, it will ensure unilbrnr practice in all the cases.

31.

Consequently, as per website ofthe State Bank of India i.e., https://sbi.co.in, the marginal cost oflending rate [in short, MCLR) as on date i,e., 13.08.2 024 is 9.10%.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate ofinterest will be marginal cost of Iending rate +2 o/o i.e.,11.0/0.

32.

The definition of term 'interest' as defined under section 2(za) of rhe Act provides that the rate of interest chargeable from the allottees by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest whlch the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottees, in case of default. f default.

The relevant section is reproduced below: " (za) "interest" meons the rotes ol interest poyable by the promoter or the allottee, as the cose may be PaSe 26 ol31 HARERA Complaint No.

2770 of 2021 33.

34. ffiGURUGRAM Explanotion -For the purpose of this clouse- the rote ofinterest chorgeoble from the ollottee by the promoter' in cose of default, sholl be equol to the rqte of interest which the promoter sholl be liable to poy the allottee, in cose of defoult the interest poyable by the promoter to the ollottee shall be t'rom the dote the promoter received the omount or ony part thereof till the date the omount or port thereof ond interest thereon is refunded' ond the interest payable by the ollottee to the promoter sholl be from the date the allottee delaults in poymenr to the prcmoter till the dote it is paidi' Therefore, interest on the delay payments from the complainants shall be charged at the prescribed rate i.e., 11% by the respo ndent/p ro m ote r which is the same as is being granted to the complainants in case of delayed possession charges.

On consideration of the documents available on record and submissions made by both the parties, the authoriry is satisfied that the respondent is in contravention of the section 11(a)(a] of the Act by not handing over possession by the due date as per the agreement By virtue of clause 11 of the agreement, the possession of the subiect apartment was to be delivered within36monthsfromthedateofexecutionofthebuyer,sagreement.Iror the reasons quoted above, the due date ofpossession is to be calculated front the date of execution of the buyer's agreement i'e',27 '01 2010 and the sard time period of three months is allowed, therefore due date of possession comes out to be 27.04.2073.

Section 19[10) of the Act obligates the allottee to subject unit within 2 months from the date of take possession of the receipt of occupation certificate. rtificate.

In the present complaint, the occupation certificate was granted by the competent authority on 05.03 2019 The respondent offered the possession of the unit in question to the complainant on l'3'02 2020 so' it can be said that the complainants came to know about the occupation Pagez1 of3l 35.

HARERA ffiGURUGRAM Complarnt No.

2770 of 2021 certificate only upon the date of offer of possession.

The handover letter was given to the complainants on 18 09.2020.

Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the complainant should be given two months'time from the date ofoffer ofpossession.

This two month ofreasonable time is being given to the complainants keeping in mind that even after intimation of possession practically he has to arrange a lot of logistics and requisite documents including but not limited to inspection of the completely finished unit, but this is subject to that the unit being handed over at the time of taking possession is in habitable condition.lt is further clarified that the delay possession charges shall be payable,flgm the due date of possession i e ' 27 .04.2013 till the date of offer of pos!ession or actual handover whichever is earlier.

The respondent has paid a delay compensation amount of Rs.g,67,5421- and the same witl be deducted while paying the delay possession charges to the complainants.

36.

As per facts on record complainant no.1 i.e., Col Kanwar Ripu Sain Jaswal has stepped into shoes of the original allottee through nomination letter dated 24.03.20L7 whereas complainant no.

2 i.e., Mehak )aiswal has stepped into the shoes on 28.08.2020 after occupation certificate was issued in respect of unit in question on O{.OalZQfg and after offer of possession was made to complainant no.1 on 13.02.2020.

It is observed that only complainant no'L has suffered the delay as he has become allottee prior to the due date of possession but complainant no. ainant no.

2 has never suffered any delay and also respondent builder had neither sent any payment demands to her nor she had paid any payment to the respondent So, keeping in view all the facts' the complainant no.2 is not entitled for delay possession charges and other reliefs.

Inadvertently it has been recorded that delayed possession charges are allowed to complainants vide proceeding dated 13 08 2024 However' Delayed possession charges are allowed to complainants no 1 only' Page 28 ol31 HARERA Complaint No.

2770 of 2021 #* GURUGRAM 37.

Accordingly, the non-compliance of the mandate contained in section 11[4J (a) read with section 18(1J of the Act on the part of the respondent is established.

As such the complainant no 1 is entitled to delay possession charges at rate ofthe prescribed interest @ 11% p a w e f from rhe due date of possession i.e., 27.04.201'3 till the date of offer of possession or actual handover whichever is earlier as per provisions of section 18(1) of thc Act read with rule 15 ofthe Rules.

II Direct the respondent to remit back the amount charged on account of fixed deposit of HVAT, advance monthly maintenance charges for a period of 12 months and interest free maintenance security.

38.

It is important to note that the conveyance deed was executed between the parties on 30.10.2020.

The conveyance deed is a legal documenI that transfers the title of property from one party to another' signifying the completion of the property transaction especially regarding payments related to the purchase price, taxes, registration fees' and any other contractualfinancialcommitmentsoutlinedintheaSreement'However, despite the conclusion of the financial obligations, the statutory rights oF the allottee persist if any provided under the relevant Act/Rules framed thereunder. hereunder.

Execution of conveyance deed is a sort of entering into a new agreement which inter alia signifies that both parties are satisfied with the considerations exchanged between them, and also that all other obligations have been duly discharged except the facts recorded in the conveyance deed' The said clause reproduced below as: Thot the octuol, physical, vocant possession ol the said Apartment hos been handed over to the vendee and the vendee hereby confirms toking over possession of the soid Aportment / pdrking spoce(s) ftom the Vendors ofier sotislying himself / herself thot the construction os olso the vqrious instollations like electrilcotion work sonitqry nittings, woter qnd seweroge Page 29 of 31 39.

HARERA ffiGURUGRAM Complaint No.

2770 of2021 connection etc. hove been made and provided in accordance with the drowings, designs and specifrcotions os agreed ond ore in good order and condition and that the Vendee is fully sotisfied in this regard and has no complaint or cloim in respect ofthe oreo ofthe said Aportment, ony item of work, material, quolity ofwork, installotion etc., therein.

It is pertinent to mention here that complainants took the possession and got the conveyance deed executed, without any demur, protest or claim.

The complainants have neither raised any grievance at the time of taking over the possession or at the time of execution of the conveyance deed, nor reserved any right in the covenants. df the conveyance deed, to claim any refund of preferential location charges or any other charges.

Also, it is a matter of record that no allegation has been levelled by the complainants that conveyance deed has been got executed under coercion or by any unfair means.

40.

The Authoriry is of view that after the execution of the cottveyance deed between the complainants and the respondent, all the financial liabilities between the parties come to an end except the statutory rights ofthe allottee including right to claim compensation for delayed or delayed handing over of possession and compensation under section 14 [3) and 18 of the IIERA Act, 2 016, In view ofthe above, the complainants cannot press for any other relief with respect to financial transaction between the parties after execution of conveyance deed except the statutory obligations specifically provided in the Acr of 2016.

G,lll Direct the respondent to not to ask for any charges which is not as per the buyer agreement.

41.

The respondent shall not charge anything from the complainants which are not the part of the buyer's agreement.

H.

Directions ofthe Authority: Page 30 of31 ffilJA&ElA # ounuenRvr 42.

Hence, the authorify hereby passes this order and issues the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the functions entrusted to the Au thority u Id cr Section 34(0 of the Act of 2016: il The respondent/promoter is directed to pay to the complainant no 1 [inadvertently recorded as complainants in proceedings datr-rl L3.0A.2024) delayed possession charges ar the prescribed rate o[ ] 1%r per annum for every month of delay from the due date of possession r.c., 27.04.2013 till the date of offer of possession plus two montlts or tl)e date of actual handing over whichever is earlier as per proviso to section 18(1) of the Act, read with rule 15 of the rules. iil The amount of Rs.9,67,5421- a)ready paid by the rcspondent ro llrc complainant as per statement of account dated 14.07.2021 by thc respondent as delay compensation in terms of the buyer's agrecment shall be ad;usted towards delay possession charges payable by thc promoter. (Ashok Sa gwan) Memb Member Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram Complaint No.

2770 0t2021 44 iii) The respondent shall not charge anything from the complainant no. l which is not the part of the buyer's agreement.

Complaint stands disposed of.

File be consigned to the registry.

Y. gistry.

Y. l-z ' [viiay Kuflar coyal) v (Arun Kumar) Chairman Dated: 13.08.2024 Page 31ol3l