VIKAS RANA AND INDRAWATI RANA vs PURI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD

BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, CURUCRAM Dateofd€.ision: 06.0S.2O25 PIIRI CONSTRIJCTION PVT L D.

Complaint No, 5415of 2022 Vlkas Rrna& lndravatiRrna V/s Pun NeeraisinSh v/s Pufl constrricnon Arvind Srnsh Rawat V/s Puri ll.n*urn,n Pvt l,td I IT HARER S-crnLrcnm,t NAMEOFTHE BUILDER PRO]ECT NAME cR/s4t\/za2z cR/1779/2022 Shri.

Vijay Kumar Coyal ORDER This order shall dispose ofall the 3 complaints titled as above filed before this authority in form CRA under sectjon 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Developmentl Act,20l6 (herernaiter referred as "the Act'l read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and DevelopmentJ Rules, 2017 (he.einafter referred as'the rules l for violatron of section 11(4)(a) of the A.t wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all rts obhgations, responsibilities and functions to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed interse between pa.ties. cR/5562 /2022 *HARER', $- eunueneur ConplaintNo.

5l15of 2022 2 l.

The.ore issues emanating from them are similar in nature and the complainan(sl in the above referred matters are allottees ot the prolect, namely, "Diplomati€ creens" [group housing colony) being developed by the same respondent/promoter i.e., M/s Puri Construction Pvt.

Ltd.

The terms and conditions of the buyer's agreements, fulcrum oithe issue involved in allthese cases pertains to fajlure on the part ofthe promoterto deliver timely possession ofthe units in question, seekrngaward ofdelay possession charges alo ng with The details ol the complaints. reply to status, unjt no., date of agreement, possession clause, due date of, possession, totd sale considerat,on, total paid amount, and relieisought are given in the table below: "DIPI,OMATIC CREENS ' Secior'110A & 111, GuruAram.

Possession Clause: r4[,, ''Subject to tems of thn clowe ond subjecr b rhe Aponhent Alldt e hovho conplied wth all the Erns ond conditions alths Aqreenen.

Aqreenen. ond nar bang in defoult undet on! olthe pro eansolthkAgreenent ahd conpliance wth dll ptovisons,latnohttetdocunentotioh etc, os preenbed by the cimpany, the Conpony proPotes to hand orer the posssion oJ the Apot ent eithin 42 nonths oJ the exe.ution ol ahit ogre.nqa The Aportnent Allouee osrees and unde\tonds that the Conpont sholl be entitled to o gtuce P. o<l ol on odditionol one hundr.d eishy (180) ders, hr opplting ond obtdining the occupatton t t. at. ,.t. p?-t I 14. rrcup t n^r !-\r!p!e.. o.cupahun rerrifiere: .

29.08,2016 .r,s -r ! rf ,,,Ll hs !, !oirrir rl LIll ?! sl!9!!!!!!!l lpe20orcomol.inrl lpa l3orcompl.intl i,,"o,"s,r T l-pi Z4 llrldr-LL irrr00116/. -f rr2rJ..ooi.

LpB 47 orrcpryl I lo.

TooImplYl r1,4r,0o,335/ .r,22,3.A00/ tpe.

57a or rspryl lpa 47orreplYl I}HARER' ls eunucnnvr Panl.ula6 Detaua Prol..t ndme and locatro0 "Diptonatic CreenJ, secror 11Oa O trr, C ji,g*. lrm18r5-{6 The rforesa,d compia,nrs were fiied by the comptdj nants against the promot€r on account oiviolation ofthe buitder buyer,s agreemenr executed berween rhe parhes in respect of said uni! for not handing over the possession by the duc date, seeking award oldelay possession charges atong with interest.

It has been decided to rrear drc said comptarnts as an appUcation for non- compliance olstatutory obligarions on rhe part ofthe promoter/ respondent in terms oi section 34(0 of the Act wh,ch rnandares rhe authoriry to ensure compliance ofthe obligations cast upon the promoters, rhe allortee[s) and rhe realestate agents underthe Act, rhe rulesand theregutations made rhereunder.

The facts of all the complainrs fited by the comptainant(r/allottee(s)are atso similar.

0ut ol the above,mentioned case, the pa.ticulars ot lead cdse CR/5415/2022 Neeraj singh v/s Puri Constructio, pvi.

Id. , pvi.

Id. are being raken 'nto consideration lor derermining the rights of the allottee{s) qua detay possession chargesalongwith interesrand compensarion Proiect and unit related deta s The partrculars ofthe project, the details ofsale consideration, the amounr pard by the complajnan(sl, date of proposed handins over the possession, detay period, ifany, have been detailed in the toltowing tabutar form CR/s11s/2022 Neeroj Singhy/s Puri Constuctio pvt.

Ltd. cooplarntlo.

5{15 of 2022 lp. slorreptyt tr"* 4 7. tan a .- RER^ regtsi.

DTCP Lrc€N *a$ [nl E] ; in ;; 3 50A 3 12 l3 ,202 202 ,tl" 03.03 03.03.

O*rp HARERA GUllUGRAIV 3.

1_J,,.: 25.0?

201a 24 01.202\ 28.08 2025 NatureVilla PromoreB pvr Ltd; BBAwiih oflgrnal attorree 2'1a3.2a72 l 14(al 23.0820t2 lps.4sotreplyl -a-" fl@, bloii 41 .d neo;nslglo sq. to 42 honrhsl.ondateoierecuttonol BBA r 1a0 28.03.20r6 -t{ 'D,ttJootl p \ t hPoDdaalr"0sza/\61,a,1,21r.r1, C.a.e period included ll 48.04,684/ lpg.57A ofreptyl ,"",J;#:i,."'* hr.

1 )26_1t.20t6 12t12t)17 L_t l'']' I tes.6Torreplyl 2022 6. .202 8 trHARERI S-eunuennv I comptainrNo.5rlsof 20, B.

8. facts ofrh€ comptaint Thecomplainanrs have made the following subrn issions in the complainrl a.

The present complaint is filed by M r.

Neeraj Singh, an alto$ee of the project called "Diplomatic creens" devetoped or to be developed by M/s puri Constructions IPvt.) Ltd. on the land admeasuring 2t acres (Approx] in 3 phases in secror 110A and 111 vitlage Choma, Curugram.

The developer obtained iollowing licenses from director Town and Country ptanning, Chandigarh, Haryana. b Revised drrwin8 plans were subm,tted before the statutory body for revisions after obtainjng occupancy cernficate which was sanctioned and approved by the authorlty.

Now 3,n phase of the project is ro be commenced soon and complete rhe project under above stated licenses.

The Allottee booked a flat /apartment no.

201, S€cond Floor in Tower,Al having super area of 1810 sq. feet in th€ said prolect. d prolect.

The allotee complainant executed a builder buyer agreement on 19.03.2012 with the promoter.

As per clause 14(a) of the said agreement rhe respondent was to deliver /handover rhe possession wirh jn a period of 42 monrhs from the date of execution ot the said agreement which comes our to be 14.03.2016.

After obraining occupancy certificate only rhe promorer developer was under the legal obligation lo handoverrhe valid possessioD as per terms and condjtions olthe BBA and amount agreed and executed up on as per th€ BBA. c.

It is pertlnent to note that complainant was ready to pay rhe vatid and bonafide demand ofthe promoter respondent excluding rhe false, illesal, uniust demnnds as pcr the demand letter being raised by him for handrng over the possession. lhere were ample ol inordinate defautts and illegalities in the demands raised by promoter.

To start, rr will nor be our c.

9_ ffHARERA $- eunucnnr,",r Complai.t No.

5,U5 of 2022 olconrext to mention tha he respondenr has detrauded rhe complainant in area measurement oi17g0 sq. feer, where as it was actually 1700 sq. feet at the time of handing over the possessjon.

Respondenr had levied huge escalation cosr @ 4% of rhe considerarion amounr on account ofsteel ,h.i other increase in the vatue oiU.S doilars. d.

Such escalarion made at the time ofhanding over the possession for the time olconstrurtjon is false, itlegal and defrauding all the altottees ot the project.

Ir is proven tj€ as the staristics cl€arly shows rhat vatue of steel during construction ofthe project never increased.

Which can be veritied iiom rhe marker as w.ll or rhe proofs r€nd€red by rhe complainanr at the time of argum€nts.

Increase in the prices of U.S dollars in marker is no ground for escalatjng rhe price. e.

Changing ol HVAT is also iltegat because it is promorer/buitder h,msetf who has to deposit such HVAT from his own sources under amneny scheme noriiicarion issued by the Haryana Excise and Taxerinn department in Seprember 2016 which 2016 which is uph€td by rhe Hon,ble HRERA Gurugram itsett t Otherwise also the promote. buijder is late by 14 months for oifer oI possession and handing over rhe possession at one prerext o. the orher.

The allotree has paid Rs 1,48,3s,787l_ as per the statement oi account issued by the promoter burtde. himsetf which calls for delay possession rnterest on the amounrs received by him catculared legally.

That rhe complainant aho reserves her right to fite separate comptaint tor compensation as and when requjred betore the appropriate forum/ authority.

R€liefsought by the complainantsr The complainanrs have soushr fotlowing relie(s) I}HARER_. s-crrnrnnrv ComplaintNo,5415of 2022 a.

Deldy po\\p\.ron rnleren di per I Jle l5 ot rne RERA d, I oe rwdrdFo ro rt e complainan t till handing over of possession.

4olo escalation cost illegal charged trom the comptainant in during undue pressure oi declining possession be refunded back to rhe comptainant a.

That the present complaint is barred bylaw oflimitation as th€ respondent has olfered the possessiorr oi the unit to the Complainants on 26.11.2016 itsell Further, the Complainants have already taken over the physical possession ol the Unit, executed the Conveyance Deed on 12.1 2017 and are presently enjoying the premises from the last 5.5 years. b That now the complainants after an expiry of 5.5 years from the date of offer oi possession ard subsequently ftom the date of execution of Conveyance Deed dt.

12.1.2017, has filed the present complaint allegedly claiming compensation lor the delay in handing over possession which is jn itself an abuse ol the process oa 1aw and highly delayed as the complainant has expressed and captured their iull satisfact,on in the duly executed and regjstered conveyancedeed. c.

That th.

Rcspondent would like to draw the attention olthe Ld.

Authority to Section 18 ol the Real Estate (Regulation & Dev€lopmentl Act 2016 (hereinaiter referred to as the "RERA Act, 2016"1 under which the c. ich the c.

Refund HVAI rmount charsed from theallottees with interest d.

Legalcharges of 11,50,000/- for cost ottirigation.

10.

On the date ol hearing, the .ruthoriry explained to the .espondent/ promote. about the conkaventions as alleged to have been committed in relation to section 11(41 (al oithe act to plead guilry or not to plead guilry.

D.

R€plybytherespondeDt 11.

The respondent has contestedthe complaint on the followinggrounds: *HARER.

S- cLrnLrcnlvt Complainant is seeking the relieiin its Complaint.

As per the said section, in case of non d€livery of possession ol the Unit in accordance with the terms agreed belween the parties in the Builder Buyer Agreement, and ia an Allotteew,shes to cont,nuewith the project, the Promotershallbe liable to pay interest lor every month ofdelay tillthe possess,on is offered at a ComplainiNo.5al5oI2022 It is most humbly submitted that on the perusal of the aforementioned provision, the leSislative intention on the aspect of "Lim,tation" is abundantly clear lt is pertinent to mention that the Legislators have explicitly kept out any compcnsation sought under the provisions of Section 18(2) oathe RER Act, 2016 from tbe ambit of Limitation however. claimsl/ compensation or interest arising by the virtue of section 18(11 & (3lofthe RERAAcl2016 are not immunized from the bar oflimitation.

Thereaore, it is aburdantly clear that the per,od of Limitation shall be deemed to be 3 years.lt is furtherclarifled thatin case possession has been oflered by the Respondent, the period ollimjtation shall in this case also commences fi.stly kom the last date prescribed / a8.eed between the parties to oater the possession i.e.

28.3.2A16 [without taking into consjderation the lorce majeure and other conditionsl and lasdy on the datc the possession was offered i.e.

26.11 2016 or the Final Demand was raised without such adjustment ofDelay Penalty Charges and will end on thedate 3 yearshave elapsed from thedate Limit3tion had commenced i.e. on 28. .e. on 28.3.2019 and lastly on 26.11.2019.It is humbly submitted that since more than 3 years has elapsed, the present complaint is not maintainable b.fore the Ld.

Authority and rt's is the duty ofthis Ld.

Authority to dismiss such Complaints initiated beyond the limitation period as laid down in catena oltudsments by various courts including the Hon ble Apex court. *HARERT.

S- crnucnnu CoDplai.tNo,5415of 2022 s That the Caus€ ofaction ior cla,ming the said delay penalty charSes arises on the date the actual possession of the unit/ plot is ofrered to the t That lor the purposes ofcalculating "Delay Penalty Charges", the period of delay commences on the date the due dat€ of delivery elapses as per the Euilder BuyerAgreement and ceases on the date the possession ofthe unit has been oalered to the Allottee and w,thin the meaning ofthe RERA Act, 2016 a Promoter is liable to pay delay possession charges aordelay period., ifany.

Complainant/ Allottee or the Final Demand has been ra,sed i.e.26.11.2016 and nor on 27 .O7 .2022.'fhat without prejud ice and without accepring rhe averments of the Complainants, even if it is assumed that complainants have any cause ofaction subsin,ng, then th€ caLrse ofaction had accrued on 26.11.2016 i.e., date oa oLer of possession and present complaint has been filed on 27.07.2022 r.e., after expiry ofmore than 5 years.

Hence, the prcscnt conrplaint has been filed beyond the prescribed peflod of limitation and hence the complaint is barred by law of limitation and should be dismissed ourrightly by th is Hon'ble Authority. h.

It is most humbly submitt€d that no lresh or continuous cause of action subsists beyond 3 years ofthe accruing ofthe r,ght to sue.

In the present case there is no lresh or continuous cause of action which subsists aiter 28.03.2019 and 1ast1y aftet 26.11.2019.

12 Copies ofallthe relevant docu me nts have been filedandplacedonrecord.Their authentrcity rs not in disputo. n disputo.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on the basis ofthese undisputed documents and submission made by the parties.

E.

Jurisdictionoftheauthority 13.

The authority observes that it has territorial as well as sub)ect matter jurisdiction to adjudjcate the pres€nt complaint iorthe reasons given below PaE€ 9 of14 *HARER 9!- crrnrnnnv Compl.inrNo.

5415of 2022 E, I Territorial jurisdiction 14.

As per notilication no. t/92/2077-ITCP dated t4.12.2017 rssued by Town and Country Planning Department, the jurjsdiction of Real Estare Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be enrire Curugram Districr for atl purpose wirh oafices situated in Gurugram.

In the present case, the proiect tn question is situated within the planning area of Curugram Distrid.

Therefore, rhis dutho.ity has complete terrirorial lurisdictjon to deat with the presenr E.ll Subiect natter , urlsdlctio n 15.

Section 11[4](al of the Act, 2016 provides that !he promorer shall be responsible to the allottee as pe. agreement for sale.

Secrion 11(41{al ,s reproduced as hereunde.: Sectlon 11 (1) The prcnotet shall- (a) be responsi ble fat oll obligotions t$pohsibilities ohd lrnctohi uhdet the ptovteons ol th6 Act at the tLles ond tesuldtrcns natla thercrndet or ta the otto*ees u! per the osteenent fo. tate, ar to the ussocioaon ololtottees, as rhe case nla! be, dllrh. convetonce olall the apattdent' plots ar bu dtnss, o\ Lhe cosc ndr be ta the allaxee\, ot the ta the associotion al ollottees or the .onpetpnt outhonly, os the cose noy be) section 34-Functions ol the Authority: 344 of the A.t p.ovt.les ta ensure .on)phon.e ol the obhqotiohs can upoh the pbhored the ollottees dnd the rcol estote agents under this Act ond the rules ohd rcsu lotton s nad e th e.eun del 16.

So, in view oithe provisions oftheActquoted above, the authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliance ofobUgations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer ng officer ilpursued by the complainants at a later stage t.

Findings on the reliefsought by th€ complainants.

F.l.

Delay possession interest as per rule 15 otthe RERA act be awarded to the .ompl.rh.hr rlll handina over olpos\e\sron.

Cooplaint No.

S4l5 of2022 lT.0nconsideratjonofthedocumentsavailableonrecord,theAuthoriryobserves that the original allottee was allotted flat no.201,2d floor, Block At, admeasuring 1810 sq. ft. approx. jn the project of rhe respondenr named "Diplomatic Creens" situated at Sector 110A & 111, Gurugram vide 8BA dated 01 11.2010. the unit was further transf,erred in rhe name of complainanr on 23.08.2012.

The occupation certiiicate forthe subjecr unit has been obtained by the respondent promoter on 29.08.2016 and the possession has been ofiered on 26.11.2016.

Further, conveyancedeed was executed berween the parr,es on 12.01.2017.

18.

The complainants are seeking delayed possession char8es and other relielfor rllegaldenlands raised from the respondentwhile the.espond€nt on the other hand is pleadin8 that the present complaint is barred by limitation as the complainants have got the offer of possession on 26.11.2016 and their conveyance deed executed on 12.01.2017, the transacrion between the complainants and the respondent stands con€luded upon the execution oathe conveyance deed and the complainants have filed the present complaint after a long delay on 03.08.2022 i.e.,lapsed ofapprox.

5 years, 10 month ofthe offer of possession and app.ox.

5 years, 7 nonths after the execution of conveyance deed.l hus, the claim otthe complainants,s not mainta,nable.

Both the partres through therr respective counsels advanced submissions w,th regard to the maintainability ofthe compliaDt on the ground olthe limitation.

19.

After the unit was allotted to the complainants, a buyers agreement in this regard was eiecuted on 28.03.2012.

Though the possession ofth€ unit was to be offered on or before 28.03. ore 28.03.2016 aftercompletion ofthe proiect but the same was offered only on 26.17.2016 after receipt of occupation certificate on 29.08.2016 and uhimately Ieading to execut,on ofconveyance deed ofthe same on I2 01.2017.

So, limilation if any, for a cause of action would accrue io the PaBe 11dI14 I}HARER-.

S- eunuenev ComplarntNo.

5415 of 2022 complainants w.e.l 26.11.2016 and nor trom 12.01.2017.

So far as the hsue ot limitation is concerned, rhe Authority js €ognizant olrhe v,ew that the law of limitation does not strictty appty to rhe Real Estate Regutation and Development Aurhority Act of 2016.

Howeve, rhe Aurhority under section 38 of the Act of 2016, is to be guided by the principle of natural justice.

It rs universally accepted maxim and the taw assists those who are vigilanr, not those who sleep over their rights.

Therefore, to avojd opportunistic and frivolous litiganon a reasonable period of tjme needs ro be arrived at for a litigant to agitate his .ight.

Th,s Aurhortty of rhe view that three y€ars js a reasonable time period for a litigant ro initiate litigation to press his rishrs under normal circumstances.

20. ltisalsoobservedrhatth€Hon'bleSupremeCourtjnjrsorderdatedt0.0l.2022 in MA NO.21 o12022 ofSuo Moro Writ Petition Civil No.3 ofZ020 have held that the period fron 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shallstand excluded ror purpose ol limitation as may be prescribed under any general or speciallaws in respect oi all judicial or quasi jndicial proceedings.

21.

In the present mafter the caus€ ol action arose on 26.11.2016 when the possession was ofiered to rhe complainants by rhe respondent.

The complainants have filed the present complalnt on 03.08.2022 which is 5 years 10 month arom the date of cause ofact,on. lo the present case rhe three-year period of delay in filing of the case would fall on 26.11.2019.

6.11.2019.

In view of the above, theAuthority is ofthe view that the present complaint has nor been filed within a reasonable time period and is barred by rhe ljmitation.

22.

No doubt, one oithe purposes behrnd the enacrment olthe Acr was to protecr the interest ofco.sumers.

However, this cannot be stretched to an extent that basic p.inciples oi turisprudcncc are to be iBno.ed and are given a go by ITHARER S-ouruennv tf4RfR. !".d-\"j4,,",,r, especially when rhe comptainanr/a ottees have atready availed aforesard benefits before execution otconveyance deed.

Fu(her, as observed in rhe landmark case i.e.

A.r.

S.eedhar ond Ors.

V.

K.M.

Munireddy and Ors. [AtR 2oo3 SC S7B] the Hon ble Supreme Court held rhat 'Law assists those who are vigilant and not those who steep over their rights.,, Law willnot assist rhose who are caretess oftheir rights.

In order to claim one,s right, one must be watchiul othis rights.

Only those persons, who are watchtul and carefulotusing their rights, areentitled to the benefit oflaw.

In the Iighr of the above stared facrs and applying aforesaid principles, the authority is oi the view thar the p.€senr complaint is not mainrarnable atter such a long period of rime The procedure of law cannot be alowed to be misused by the litiganls even in cases where allottees hav€ avail€d certain benellts prior to the execution of conveyance deed. tt is a principle oa natural justice that nobody s right should be preiudiced for the sake of other,s risht. when a person remained dormant for such an unreasonable per,od of trme without any just cause.

F.ll.

4010 es.alatlon cost tttegal charged from the compl.ioant iD dudog undue pressu.e otdeclining possession be refubded back to the complatna;t .tons F,lll.

R€fund H VAT amount charged from the altottees wtth lDrerest.

1n the above menrioned reliefs sought by the complainants, the f,nancial liabilities between the allottee and the promote. comes to an end after rhe execution ofthe conveyance deed. ance deed.

The complainants could have asked for the cla,m beiore the conveyance deed gorexecured berween the pafties. 'l he.efore, after execut,on of the conveyance deed the complainant allottee cannotseek any refund olcharges other than srarutory benefits ifany pending. once the conveyance deed is executed and accounrs have been senled. no clarms .emain.

So, Do directions in tbis regard can be etaectuated ar rhis srase.

23.

24.

26.

I}HARERA (s- eunucn,qrtr ComplaintNo.5415or2O2Z F.lV.

L€gal charges of 11,S0,000/- forcosr of IitiSation 27.

The complai.ants are seeking above mentioned relief w.r.t. l,tigat,on cost.

Hon'ble Supreme Court oilndia jn civitappeal nos.6?45-6749 of 2O2t titled as M/s Neu/tech promoters anit Devetopers pvt, Ltt. v/s Stote ol Up & Ors. [supror, has held thar an alortee is entitted ro ctaim compensation & litigation charges under sect,ons 12,14,18 and secrion 19 which is ro be decided by rhe adjudicaring officer as per section 71 and rhe quanrum of compensation & litigation expense shau be adjudged by the adjudicating oaficer having due regard to the iactors mentioned jn section 72.

The adjudicating officer has exclusive ju ri sd iction to dealwirh thecomptainrs in respect ofcompensarion & 28.

This decision shalt mutatis mutandis apply to cases mentioned in para 3 ofthis orde.

In light oithe above, the comptaint is not mainrainable and the same is 29.

Complaint as wellas applications, jfany, srand disposed oaaccordingty.

30.

File be consigned to registry.

Haryana Real Datedr06.05.2o25 W, (Arun Kumar) Chairperson Estate Regulatory Authority, Curugram \.r>2 (vuay Kulnarcoyal) (Ashok