NISHA GUPTA vs ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED

HARERA GI]RUGllAIU NishaGupta 1. l\4/s Ansal Hou5rnB & Co ReE . oftrce I10 indraP 21,8arakhanba Road, complaintNo.

170oI2024 BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGUI-ITTORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Order p.onounced on I l7O ol2024 o7.05.2025 no.2 2.

M/s.Identity Build vt Ltd.

Regd omce: B/1/13 CORAM: Sh ri Ashok Sa.gwan L ,?r rE REB APPEARANCE: A This complaint has been filed by the co lainant/alloft ee under section Memb€I Complainant 31 of the Real Estate [Regulation and D elopment) Act, 2016 (in shori, the Act) read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate [Regulation and Developmentl Rules, 2017 (in short, the Rules) lor violation of sect'on { ORDIR gHARERA S- crrnLrc,nnrrr complrntNo 170 of2024 2.

11(41(a) ofthe Act wher€in it is inler oiio prescribed that the promoter shall be responsibl€ for all obligationt responsibilities and tuncdons under the provisions ofthe Act or the Rules and regulations made there under or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale ex€cuted in&r se Unit and proleci detalls The particulars of unif sale consideration, the amount pald by the complainants, date of proposed handlnS over the possession' delay period, ifany, have been detailed j$:H$lollowinc tabular form: [a.No.

Particulars Vide registration no.

16 of2019 Dated-01.04.2019 5 DTCP License License no.

32 of 2012 PERIH'0703, TYPe_3BHK_37 6 Buyer I twith original allott€el ii,".*-;.r",* [As on page no.26 ofcomPlaint) 1762 sq.ft. lsale Area] (As on page no.

26 ofcomplaintl 15.05.2013 (As on page no.23 of comPlaint) shatt offer Possessian Group Housing Sector-103, Gurugran, HarYana. lThe Devetop:! i'trA.* HARERA GURI-]GRAI/ aomplarnt No.

170 of 2024 i-*" unir o,ry tim* *itnin o Penod oI 4a mo hs Jrom the dore olt, execution of Aqreeme or wlthin 48 nonths lron the dote oJ obtainlng alt the required sarlctions atat aqqroval necessary lo" conmencement oI construction, whichever is later subject ta timely pdyment of all the dues by buYer and subject to Jorce' najeure circumstonces os descri os described in clouse 32 Further, there shall be a grace period ol 6 months allowed b the Develoqer over and above the pertod ol 48 months as above in offering the possession olrhe unit H Due drte or Possession Total sale consideration lir tA,"",rp"rd 15.11.2017 lcalculated 48 mondrs from execution of agreement + 6 srace periodl [Ason Page no. l6 orcomPlain0 Rs.51,04,413/- (As per customer ledger 29.09.2021 on Page no.

I [3]Toccupation certifi cate I 14 ]oner {5 of *HARER; S- cLnLrennu 3.

I], tact ofthe complaint The complainant has made the lollowing submissions: - l. lhat the respondent no.1 Ansal Housing & Construction Limited and collaborator presentlvown and possess large land holding situated in Sector-103, Gurugram. lhc respondent planned to develop a residentislapartment in a group housin8 conrplex named as "Ansals Highlan.l Park".

Il.

Thathinging upon the reputalionotthe respondent as one ofthebest real estate companies and believing the representations/assurances and warrantics to be n'uc, the conrplaiDant ngreed to purchase a residential aparhnent in the project The previous owner Mr' KR' Ghai booked the subject apartment on 16'05'2012 bv paving the bookins amount oi Rs.3,24,793l which was dulv endorsed in favor of the complainant and the conplainant had paid total ot Rs.51,04,413/ to respondent no2 ie' tvlls ldentity Buihech Pvt Limited which is lvhouv owned subsidlarv of the respondent till date' 'Ihis is an admitted fact as in the letter dated 27'06'2020 issued by the respondent to the contplainant This said letter was pertaining to the exteDsion oftime and thjrd party lunding otthe proiect' lll.

That the Apartment Buyer's Agreement was executed with the orisinal allottee on 15.05'2013 and the same was endorsed i' favor ol thc complainant As pcr Clause 31 of the Afartment Buver's Agreement, the respondent agreed to handover possession of the unit no.'PDRTH _0703' on or befo'e 15'11'2017 including the grace period ol6 months. l6 months. [ABE!A GURUGRA[/ That the complainant somewhere in March 2014 tried to contact the respondent and enquire about the status of compl€tion ofthe proiect in dispute buthe was notable to receiveany information fromthem' That the complainant came to know that the construction work ofthe project has been stopped, he was shocked and decided to visit the offlce of the resPondent.

That the officials ofthe respondent assured the complainant that the delivery of the possession shall beas per the terms and conditions of the Builder Buyer's Agreement and that the complainant need not to Vll. 'lhat the complainant agail tried to contact the respondent in everv lvay of communicatio. but all in vaiD' No heed was paid to the concerns of the complainant' The complainant k'pt chasing the respondent till March 2016 but Do satisfactory response was ever given bY the resPondent.

Vlll.

Ihat as per Clause 31 of the Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 15.05.2013, the respondent contemplates to complete construction of the sai(l buildil8/s:rid Apatment within a Period of 3 years fronr the date ot the cxecution of the said Apart e't Euyers Agreement' Further, 6 monihs of grace period was agreed for the purpose ol fit outs and a further period of 6 months on account of grace over' Hencc the due dnte oI handrng ovcr of the lossession of the said .rpartmeni was on or before 15'11'2017' Ix That it was in the year 2018 that the complainant visited th€ project site to check the status ofher tower, she was left in utter shock when she si$' that th. constrlrction of the said tower has not been Complarnt No.

I70of 2024 VI, HARERA GURI]GRAIV1 completed till that day.

When the complainant approached the respoDdent, she tlas not allolvcd to meet any of the officials oi the resPondent and $'as sent back' x That 15.11. hat 15.11.2017 was the due date of possession as per the possession clsuse oi th' Apartment Euye's Agreement but shockingly thc construction work of the to!'er D whlch the unit of the complainant is located has not been completed yet lt has been more tha.

10 years from date ol signing of the Apartment Buvers Agreement aDd the constmction of the project has not been completcd till date despit' paynre't of sobstantial amount bv XI lhat the respondent has lailed to register the said project in dispute under llEM and committed Erave miscarriage otlaw on its own part' Without pre)udice, it can be slatc'l tlrat there has been no intentional delay in payment from the end of the complainant and the complainant has made numerous representations to the respondent and has been constantlv lollowing up through personal messages' lette.s aDd calls but the respondents have not given any satisfactory response and no clarity regarding the date of delivery ofthe unit as per the Apartment Buyers Agreement' Xll That the comPlainant as a vigilant allottee kept on following the updates on the rcsidcntial project in th' pr'sent case That' in drc year 2019, the complainant visited the proiect site' and to the utter shock and surprise of the complainant the project was still under construction and the tower in which the unit was not completed and delaY was caused bYdre rcspondent |;;rrtr "" rro"r,0" HARERA complJrnt No 170 of2024 a.

GURIJGRAIU 'fhat the complainant is going through major financial crunch and has invested all her hard_earned money in the project but the €oncerned unit has not been constructed 3nd delivered to the complainant till date despite passing of more than 6 5 vears fron the due date of Reliefsought bY the comPlainant: 'Ihe complainant has sousht loliowing relief(sl: i.

Dire.t thc respordent to relund the pavment made in l'eu of unit alongwith interest. ii. erest. ii.

Direct the respondent to pay Rs20,00'000/_ for causing mental dgony Jnd nrrassmenr to (he complainant lor mrsrepresentalion and adopting unfair trade practice' On 13.03.2024, ihe memorandum of appearance lvas filed on behalt ol respondent no-1 aDd the counsel requested for an adiournment to file rcply.

None appeared on behalf of ihe respondent no'2' The matter was ixed for hearinB beiore the Authority on 08'05'2024 with directions to both the respondents to file reply in the registry within a period ofthree lveeks.

On 08.05.2024' the counsel for the respondent appeared and submitted that the copy of the reply has heen submitted to the complainaDt through Email and the same sh'll be submitted in dre registry ioday itself.

Oa 22'072025' the matter was adiourned on the request of the counsel for ihe cornplainant and was fixed for hearing on 26.03.2025. vide proceediDBs date'l 2603'2025' the proiy counsel for respondetrt no.1 appeared and requested for a shot adiournment as the 5 XIII &HARERA S- crnuenqH,l Comp a nr No.170 of2024 D. main arguing counselwas not available None appeared on behalfofthe rospondent no.2 and respondenl no' 2 was proceeded cxparte' But' after going through the reply submitted by the counsel lor respondent' the r\uthority observed that the reply was jointly filed by respondent no'1 .nd respondent no.2 and also the same is mentioned 'learly in the vakalainama annexed with the rcply that the counsel is engaged lor both rcsponden t no.1 and respondent no'z Thus, the Authority is of the view that the order dated 26.03.2025, proceeding exparte agajnst the rcspondert no.2 w,rs inadveftently fccorde't and the same 1s beins Rcply filed bY the resPondents 'lhe respondents have subnritted the followingbylvay olt{ritten reply: l. l'hat the respondents are developers and have built multiple rcsidential and commercial buildings within Delhi/NCR That tlre .omplainrnis approached the respondcnts for booking a unitbearing no' I'ERTH_703 h the proje. the proje.t na eiy Ansals Highlands l']ark"' situated at Sector 103, Gurugram.

Upon the satisfaction of the complainant rcgarding inspection of the site, title, location plans' etc' a Builder Buyer Asreement dated 15.05.2013 was signed hetween the parties' Il. l'hat the prescnt dispute cannot be governed by the Act' 2016 because of the iact that the Builde.

Buver Agreement was signed betv/een the ' .omplainantand the respondentintheyear20l3'Theregulationsatthe concerned time period would regulate the project and not a subsequent lceislation.

It is lurther submrtted that Parlirhent would not make the HARERA GURUGRAII operation ofa statute retrospective in efl'ect' lll.'l'hatthecomplainant specificallvadmitstonotPayingnecessaryduesor the fullpayment as agreed upon underthe Builder BuyerAgreement lt is mbnritted that the complainant cannot be allowed lo take advantage of IV. 'lhat the complainant has adnrittedly filed the complaiDt in the year 2023 and the cause of action accrue 15 05'2017 as per the complainant itsel' 'l herelbre. it is $rbmitted that the complain( cannot be filed before the luthority as tlre same is ban cd by Iimitation' v. l'hat even if the complainr is admitted to be true and correct' the agrecment which was signed in the year 2013 without coerc'on or anv duress cannotbe called in question today' lt is submitted thatthe bltilder buyer ol thc said agreemctrt proviclcs tbr Rs' 5/ sq foot per monih otr super area for anv delav in offering possession of the unit as mentioned Lr Clause 31 oi the agreement Therefore' the complaiDant will be cntitled to invokc the said clause and h barred from approaching the luthority in order to alter the pen:lty clause by virtue ofthis complaint more than l0years after itwasagreed uponbyboth parties' Vl. lhat the respondents had in due course 'f time obtained all necessary rpprovals fron thc concerncd auLhorities lt is submittcd thatthe pernrit lar cnvironnrcntal clcarances i'r proposed SrouP housing proiect for Sector for Sector 103, Gurugram, Harvana on 20 02'2015' Sim'larly' the approval lor digginB the foundation and basement was obtained and sanctions lrom tbe department of mines nnd geolos" were obtained in 2012' Thus' the reqrondenG have in a timely and prompt manner ensured that the F*l*,-"^"r.-ri--l complaLnt No.

170of 2024 HARERA GURUGRAN/ .annot be faulted on giving be obtained and thus, requisite comPliances delayed possession to I',hat the respondents have adequately explained the delay That the ilelay has b.en occasioned on account ofthings beyond the control of the rcspondent. lt is fufther subnritted that thc blrilder buver agreement provides lor such eventualitics and the cause for delav 's completely ..vcred in the saiil clause The respondent ought to bave complied with the orders ol the tlon'ble High Court ol Punlab and Haryana at chandiga r in cwlr No.

200.J2 ol 2008, dated t6o7 2AlZ' 3107 -2012 21 08.2012.

The said orders bnnned the extraction of water which is the backbonc of the construction process Similarly' the complaint irsell revcals that the correspondence from the respondents sPecifies hr.e nrajcure and the order! ot the Hon'ble NCT prohibitiDg .onrtruction in and around Delhi and the covlD'19 pandemic among othcrs as the $uses which contributed to the stalling of the project at .rrcial junctures for considerable spells' Vlll. lhat the complajnart and ihe respoDdeots ddmittcdly enter€d into a'r agreement which provides for the eveqt of delayed possession' It js subnlitted that clause 32 ofthe agreement is clear that no compensation crn be sought by ihe conrplainant/prospective buver in the event n] delay in Possessron.

6.

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

The authenticily is not in dispute Hence' the complaint can be decided on the basrs olthosc urrdisputed documents as well as written submissjons made bv the complainants Page l0 oi22 ffiHNE&A -db.- GURUGRAM E, 7.

GRAM E, 7.

Itegulatory Authoritv, Curugram sl ComplarnlNo.

170of 2024 Iurisdiction of the authoritY The Authority obsewes that it bas territorial as well as sub'ect matt€r jurisdiction to adjudicate the pres€nt complaint for the reasons grven E. t Terrltorial iurisdlcUon 8.

As per notification no l/92/2017'1lTcP dated 14122017 issued bv 'lown and Country Planning De the jurisdiction of Real Estate ent,re Gurugram District tor all ln the present case, the ing area ol Gurugranr t the promoter shall be nt for sale.

Section 11[4)(a) is purpose with offices situated in c project in queslion is situated witl l)istrict Therefore, this plarn E.ll Subiect 9.

Section ll(4jta) of th rerllonsrblc to the allotiees a r.produced as hereLrnderl RE At\fi tnt be tesloheblP tot all obligoton\ resPoneb trie\ ond i;,,,; ;;;;. it" p,^",o^ oi tt'i'.

Act..ot Lhc 'uh! o t ',*'iiiii.i i,ai iti,*,au , a th. ottot,P< 6 pet rhe '.i'ii^..i r"i *t". - * ,t, .e&ooi ol otlot@q os thP--'os- ;;:;;;.;;i ,ii" .-*'** ot att hP apo'It4en6 ptots ot b!,1 d ngt. o, thP ca :e na ! bP. to the ollat teet t ha' odnon ore-os iii,,ii7i1.,,i.d a',*'., np ,onDaent outho'Ittv' a' th" DI: comphrn No.170 o12024 1 0.

So m v iew ot the prov isions ol the Act quoted ab ove' the authority has com!lete jurisdictioD to decide the complaint regarding non-compliance olobligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation wbich is to be decided by the adjudicatrng olficer il pursucd by the complai'ants at 'r f tindtngs on the obiections raised by the respondentsi F.l.

Ob,ection regardirg Force maieure circumstances: 1l. lhe respotrdents have rarscd lhe contenrion that lhc construction ofthe tower rn which the unit of the complainant is situated' has been delayed due to lorce maieure circumstances such as Covid-19 wbich lead to a nationwide lockdown, orders of uon'ble High Court ol Haryana and PunJab banDing the constru'rion lvolk and extraction ol water etc, demonetisation, orders of Hon'ble l{igh Court of Delhi rcgarding sto arding stoppage ofconstruction wo'k in or around Delbi' 12 As far as dclay irl construction due to outhreak of Covid-19 rs concerrleil, Ilon ble Delhi High Court ifl case titlcd as M/s Hollibufton Ollshore Seruices tnc. v/S Vedanta Ltt' & Anr' bearlns no' O M P 0) (conn.) no.

88/ 2020 ond I As 3596'3697/2020 dated 29'05 2020 has observed that' '69 the latt h.r perhr dnLc ol the C'ntroctrr 'onnot be coddoned due to the Ct)VlD lg lackdown i1Moth202t) in lhdia 'fhe Cantructar \|os tn bteoch sn)ce Septetubcr 2019 Apportunxteswcre grveh ta the conttoctat t" ,-a" tt," ,","e *pe"t"ttt Daspite the safre the l:antto'to' could not Lnnplete thc ll])ex"lhc artbtuak oJ d puntt?ni"ann't be Lsed as an ex.u\.]at hon petlorrnice 'l d Ln"ta't far dhr:t) ttle tleddhh$\|ete nuch beldcthe outbreak t\cl PaEe 12 al2Z *iHARERA GUllUGRAIV The Apartnrent Buyers ASreement has been 'xe'uted betlveen the erstwhile allottee and the respondents on 15 05'2013 in respect of unit bearing no PERTH'0703, TyPe 3BHK_3T' admeasuring an area of 1762 sq.it As pcr clause 31 of the said agreement dated 15'05'2013' the respondent undertook to offer possession ofthe unitto theallottee within a period oi 48 months f'om the date oi execution ol the agreement or lvithin 48 months from the date of obtaining ali the required sanctrons and apProval nccessrry nrr 'ommencement ol coDstruction, whichever is later.

Eurther, a Srace period of 6 months s,as also agreed between the parties over and above the period of48 months lhe due date is beilg calculated from the daie ofexecution ol the agrcement.

Thus, 48 months from the date of execution of the agreement comes out to b€ 15 05'2017 and further a grace period of 6 months, is granted in favour of the respondenis Thus the due date ot possession conres out to be 15'112017 1he rcspondent is claiming benelit of lockdown which came into effect on 23'03 2020 which is much alter the due date of possession' Thereiore' the Aurhoritv is of thc view that the outbreak ot the pande the pandemic (toes not fall under thc torce majeure circumstances in the present matter and hence the benefit of covid_19 cannot be Eranted to the respondent- lurther' the other force m.rjeure.onditions mcntioned by thc respond€nts for example orders ot Hon'ble HiSh Court ot Haryanr and Punlab and Hon ble HiSh Court of Puniab, HoD'ble NCT ba'nlng the construction ComplaintNo.

170o12024 HARERA GURUGRA[/ activities, extraction of wate. etc were for a short period ol time and also matters happening on regular basis and the respondents are very much aware of the happening ot these circumstances' Also' a grace pcriod ol 6 months h.rs aLeadl' been grtDtcd in iavour of thc respon.lcnts.

ThoLrgh there have bcen various orders issued to curb the environment pollution, but these were ior a short period of time So, the cjrcumstances/condrtions aiter that Period cant be taken into consideration for delav in completion of the project' Thus' the Authority is oi the view ihat no relielw-r't this can be granted to the t.ll Obiection rcgaldingthe complrint be ing ba rred by llmitation 11.

The respondents have raised an objection that the complaint has been filed jn the vear 2023 and the cause of action arose in 15 05'2017 as per the comPlaint itselfand the same is barred bv limitation' l5 Ihe Authorily observes that the origrnal allottees booked a unit in the project "Ansals Highland Park" situated at Scetor 103' Curusram being developcd by the respondents An Apartment Buver's Agreem€nt has been .xecuted between the orignr'l rllotree and the respond€nts on 15.05.2013 and the same was subsequently endorsed in favour of thc complainaDt.

As pe. clause 31 ofthe Agreement dated 15 05 2013' the due date of ofier of possession ol the unit to the complainant was 15.11.2017 The respondents have iailed to obtarn the Occupation certificare iionr the concerned authorities till date' despite a lapse of more than seven years. ven years.

The sale consideration oi the unit rs ComplarnL No I70 oi2024 compla'nl No.

170 of 2024 HABERA GURUGRAN/ Rs.68,46,711l- out oi which the complainnnt has till date paid an amount ol Rs 51,04,413.88/_.

The un'it is still incomplete even after a delay olnrore than 7 vears rrom the due date of possession The cause of action ol the complainant is continuing and the complaint is not barred by lnnitntion.

F.lll.

Obiection regarding iurisdictton of authority wr't buy€r's agreenrent executed prior to coming into force of th€ Act' 16.

One of the contentions ol the respondents is that the Authority is deprived of the iurrsdiction to go into the iDterpretation ol or rights of the parties inter se in accordance qith the buyeis agreeme't executed betwecn the parties The respoodents further submitted lhat the p.ovisions of the Act are not retrospective in nature and the provisions of the Act cannot undo or modis' the terms of buver's agreement duly cxecuted prior to coming into effect olthe Act' 17'1 he Alrthofl q is oi the view that the Act nowhcre provides' nor ca' bc so construed, that all previous agreements will be re_wriBen after coming into iorce oi the Act' Therefore' the provisions ofthe Act' rules and a8reement have io be read and interpreted harmonioudv' Howevcr, rf the Act has provided for dealing with certain specific provisions/situations in a specific/particular mann€r' then tbat situation will be dcalt with iD 'rccordance t!ith the Act and the rules aller the dale 01 coming rnto Iorce of the Act and the rules Nume'ous provisions of the Act save the provisions ol the agreements made J}JHARERA compla'nrNo.

170o12024 2" GURUGRAN/ berween Ihe buYers and \ellers' 'lhe sa,d conteDtion has been upheld in the landmark iudsment ol Hon'ble Bornbav High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburbrn Pvi Ltd Vs UOl and orhers (W'P 2737 of2017) s hich provides as under: -|4 thus- keelinq n vier o,t alote:an d$Lr*to4' we ary ol the . y ol the .on'dered oin';r thot th" ptovfion\ oJ the act orc quoe retrooctive t; some dten in aperation dndwitt be nbDticobte 6 Lne ..)"".i,t' t", *r" *a*i nn *^ *i"'tt!' c'-ina'ioa 1t9 Under the prcvrn'EaJSectrcn 13 the delov tn hahdihg over ,;; -:. *, "*, b,.-"ted tton t\P d"' n?dtaned 'r the "" )-*. ., '^, -,',a ttu hi th: Ponu'" a1d thP otton"e .".

L. a '""- ,en,**'p:'M UNl' ta p'a\"-on'ofREM ;;,.,;,,.,"'", t aota. )' ta'' ta'ao'".' o DtPron ot ,;"'" " "'i" t ." PrMdaa nt ,..,i .,,t",,,,,,.,, t 4t "ro.-adtu. 'a tot Dlt-nap, onl 'ii!'"'i"i"k;" ,**, ,*,svd that obove naed p'ovisions or the RtiRA ore nat retrcsPective in naiue Thev nd! to sa e extent '' ;;,,,,; "'," " \ c ot t)uo'i t a oo. t v' e i L' t t her on lhat ',',",,'i *t," t' - pt a' r r n' a- t rM r- -'t t " 1atte\el ,n tt ,,n"4, o -'-- t P tot hurtna ,:,,.;.,;,,"' tt^lt"."tt" 4t.i 't -' FaranPdo ",,. ,-.,-n r'^" ' !'t fi on to ttot'tg\t'b"t\ in. t.i.iii"i"i" -" 'i. w" ao not na\e oa! ooubL 'n o ntad in",,ni ptw',^ *- l'".u 'n the loruet puDLc rtqe'' afie' o ti',eo\ 'tutlJ ord b'- ton 4rde at i- n'oh" t le#t bv th" si,iii," i.i^tta" ond setect connittee tuhi'h subnitte't its nefineIl rcParts' ra. ar*, i" rpp.'"i.".i23 ot2019 titled as Mog" trve Developer Pt't- Lttl' vs. lshwer singh Dahiya dated 17'12'2019' th€ Haryana Real Estate Appellatc Inbunal has obseNed_ W ^-",.,-,";., oe E.m ond rcndn,n. at Ire oq@nat tot '.-. thpottoLke snoh be en Ltedbtn? htetc\t/dPtqed lnr\?*ton .i)- ",i "- ii;,***w ".* ot nP t ei o' pt o\ ded n R utc I 5 oJ ',;;';;;' ",;;d-;;" \@d. unht a u eo'onabtc rcte ol I..]ADFI?A flnl\Ll\/-1 f.------ffi"f,or. l GURI.IGIAV I conpenntion nehtioned in the ogreenent Jnr sote B liable to be ndtngs on ihe rellefsought bv tbe complainaBt: Dlrect th€ respondent to retund thc palment made tn lteu of flat tlll dat€ alongwith interest tllt the date ofreallz'tion of the amounL tn the present case, the complainant intcnd to withdraw from the project and is seek,ng return of the amount paid bv her in bv her in respect of subject unit along with interest at the prescribed rate as provided under section 18(1) of the Act' sec 18(1) of the Act is reDroduced below ior readv reference.

G.

F!

G.t.

19. ''Section B: ' Return oJ amottt and cotuPen9tion 18t1). tfthe prcnoter J;its to cohplete at ilunabte tostve posse$ion nt.n,toat tnenL Dlar, at bLtldino.' ," -,,1' "-" " "'in,t'" *'a ot the oe' Pea'n tot'at" o' a' th?'o\c ",a'ol tiLtt vrlpPkd t\' t 'p/ -'-d t''hr ' - , . . . .,.i.,,.. .. ,. .. tr..top- - d obn, ol . ",-.-,.*.aLn-ot f i't- nb'a-"'1 4"'fo'orr ie shol be lioble on denond to the altottees in cate the allattee '"i'1i"'. *irta-r1,.^ tt" proiect withoutpretal@ ro o^t athet '., a '.n,u io return rte anouat rP"iwd hin in ,"',"" u ,n^ .r*u** t'tot' building o' 4 'a\e nov bQ' *ilt '^", ,. .*t' tarr;' oor Le ph\ttl'd 1 tr D"hott ,. t J, a,nD\" rt a' 1t - r '1n\t a D'o 'LJ-- - 11 'A'l - or," oipo.t"..ior, ln the pre\Pnt (dse the ongindl dllottee 14r' K'R' Chai booked an apartmeDt in the proiect "Ansals Highland Park' siluated in sector103, Gttrugram, a'd pursuant to that the Apartment Buyer's Ag[eemenl !vas executcd between the originnlallottee and the respondents on 15 05.2013' Subsequently' the unit was endorsed in favour of the complainant' The sale consideratron ol the unit was Rs.68,46,71 1/'as aSreed between the parties aDd thc complainant has paid nn a ount ol Rs.51,04,'11 3/' As per ClaLrsc :lI ol the Agreement' dre unit was to be deiivered to the complainant with in 48 months from HARERA GURUGRA]V the date of cxecution ot tlre agreenrcnt or 48 nronths lrom the date of obtaining allthe required sanctions and approvals' whichev€r is later' with an additional 6_month grace period Therefore' the due date for the handover of possession was 1511'2017 The respondents have failed to obtain o.cupation Celtiucate fionr the compctent authorities till date.

21. date.

21.

Admissibility ofretund along with prescribed rate ofinterest; The complarnant is seeking refund of the amount paid by them at the prescribed rate of ilterest Ilo!!ever, lhe lllort rs intends to withdraw hom the proiect and are seekiDg relund ofthe amount paid by them in respect ofthe subjecrunitwith interesrat prescribed rate as provided under rule 15 ofthe rules Rule 15 has been reproduced as underl Rute ls Presribed tute ol int'rest' IPtoeiso Lo section 12' iiiii", to ,"a *t"un" til oml subse'tion (7) ol section 1el. -,r', i", ,"r",r"'".tp'""'ata'etbr t2''eton13 oad \ub 'i "",,,ti ^a ri, 'l 'ct'on la ttt" iltttp'' rI thP tare ,''.,j.a't "r, o",' "',"r" Bont' 4 |ndn haP I not s6ot .. j atterlna ruk +2t1- j,,.a, t i. r"..td'e n'at '' l'al 'attt ,, ,,,'',, ," j l ll' D, Jla'clbl 'L'h ;,.h; d,k t"h,tt4a' -' ",,r'.h t \c 5 ot nor'' t t ad'o nat ti l f.an tme to tlne lor lending to the general pubhc 22.

Thc legislature in its wisdom in the subordinate legislat'on under the p rovision ol rule 1 5 oi the rules has d eternrined thc prescribed ratc ol interest.

The rate of interest so dctermined bv tbe legislature is rcasonable and iithe said rule is followed to award the interest' it will ensure uDiform practice in all the cases 2:l Consequently, rs per !v'bsi!e of the sratc Ba|k of India ie' Compa niNo I70 of2024 httos://sbi.co.in, the narginal cost oflending rare [in shoft' MCLR) as PaEe 1A af22 !SE!A GURUGRAIV interestwill Lomplarnt No.

170 of 2024 07.05.2025 is 9.10olo Accordinglv, the prescnbed rate of be marsinal cost oflending rate +2% ie., 11.10%' 24 The delinition of term'interest' as defin€d under sect'on 2(za) of the Act provides that the raie of interest chargeable hom the allottee by thc promoter, in case oi detnrlt, shau be 'qual to the rate of interest strich the Promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee' in case of deiault.

The relevantsection is reproduced below: t)d. t1t.tP't ffol' tho totel o! 'nLe P't pvlobt" b) thP att,t'f a-t\ o. 'f a-t\ o.? n tt b- , \.

L noLan tat - n. tpa ealt\r laL P nr';- .\ats'rt e lo'r 'r' o\o t?P b! tn" .dotct d coe ol o4adt' \halt bP eqLot 'a t\e rote ot interest ehjch the P.onotet thall be lidble to pa! the ollouq n .a$ al.tefauttl bJ ttP P'aaot- 'a th" rtto t' :holl b" 1..nt" dR-r ''ron-' ttrntP L Lletuaf Litl the lut thc nDount ar ParL thercol ana tntqest nrcrc;n is rettnded ond the intercst Nloble b! the ollatDe it' the Dtun;E^hatt be fton rhe dote the oltattee deloults in poyn; tu the prcnopt till the date it is pai'1i 25 In the present complaint, the original altottee booked a unit in the proiect "Ansals rlighland Park' aDd a unit bearing no PERTH_0703 was allotted to the erstlvhile allottee Subsequcntly' an Apartment Buyer's Agreement was executed beMeen the erstwhile allottee and the respondent on 15.05.2013' Tbe unit w's endorsed in lavour of the complainant .nd the complrinant paid an 'mount of Rs51'04'413/ against the total sale consideratjon of Rs'68'46'711/_' According to Clause 31 of the Agreement dated 15 05 2013' the possession of the unit was io be handed over to the complainant within a period o148 months from the date ol erecution of th' Agrcement or 48 months irom date of obtainins the necessary approvals ior commencement of Page 19 ot22 HABEBA GUllUGRAM the projecr whichever is later with The du€ dat€ is taken in account agreement i.e., 1503.2013.

Thus, 1S-17-2017.

ComplaintNo.

170of 2024 an extended Period ofsix months' from the date oi e{ecution of the the due date codes out to be 2a).

There is a delay in handing ovcr the posscssion as due date of possession lvas 15.11.2017 whereas, the respondents have failed to obtain the occupation certificate from the concerncd authorities till 27 Thus, kceping irr vicw the aloresaid tacturl and lcgal provisions' the failu.e ol the respondents rs established under the Act' 2016 as the respo.dents failed to obtain the occupation certificate from the concerne. concerne.l authorities and also ofier poss€ssion of the unit to the complarnanl wirhiD the agreed tnne period' lhe respondents have been holding the rmount pnid by thc complainant lrom 2013' Even after a delay ofmore tharl7 years, the unit has not been delivered by tlre rcsl)oDdents to the complainant tjll date The respondents cannot rctain the amouDt paid l)y tho conrPlainant a8rinst the allotted uDit and are directed to r€iund the same in view of the Apartm€nt Buyers Agreement along \'fith interestatthe mte of 11'10% lthe State Bank of lndia hrghest marginal cost of lending rate [MCLR] applicable as on date +20lol as prescribe't under rule 15 oi the llaryana Real Estatc (Resulation and Developnrentl Rulcs' 2017' fron the date of each payment till the actual realizatjon of the amount within the timelines prov ed nr rulc 16 ofthc Harvana Rules 2017 ib G.ll Direct the respondent to pay Rs 20'00'0oo/_ tor causing mental agony and har;ssmentto the complainant for misrcpresentation HARERA provided in rule 16 ofthe HaryanaRules2017 ibid' Compla'nt No.

170 of 2024 .

GURUGRAN/ and adopting unfair trade pracilce' 28.

The complainant is sceking the abovc mentioned reliefs w'r't compensation. 'Ihe Hon',ble supreme court ol India in civil Appeals no' 674445'679 ol 2021 litled as M/s Newt€ch Promoters and Developerc Ltd. v/s Stare of UP (supra) has held that an allottee is entitled to claim compensation and hti8ation charges under Section 12' 14 18 and Section 19 which is to be decided by the Adjudicating officer as per section 71 and the quantum of compensation and litigation charges shall be adjudicated bv the adjudicatiDs orficer baving duc regards to the factors mentioned in SP'rion 72' Therefore' the complainant may appmach the adjudicating officer ior seeking the rclief olcomPensation IL Directions ofthe authority 29. hority 29.

Hence, the Authority 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 lunction entrusted to the authoritY under sectjon 34Ul: i. lhe respondents are directed to refund the lull paid_up amount of Rs.s1,04,413 / alongwith interest nt the prescribed rate ie'' 11'10% oD thc anrount paid by thr complainaDt' tronr the date of ench payment tillthe actual realization ofthe amount within the timelines PaAe 2l al22 *HARERA S-alRucw ii.

A period of 90 days is directions given in the wouldfollow. given to the respondents order and failing wh,ch complalntNo.

170o12024 to comply with the 30.

Complaintstands disPosed of.

3l File be consigned to registry Ilatedi07.05.2025 I 'p/ AY RegulatoryAuthoritY, P^Ce22 ol22 sangwan)