VIRAL NAVNITLAL MEHTA vs RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD.

ffiHARERA ffi,eunuGRRlv BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Complaint no. : Date of complaint : Date oforder : Viral Navnitlal Mehta R/o: - A 404, Orchard, Godrej Garden City, Nirma University, fagatpur Road, Ahmedab ad, 38247 0, Guj arat Versus 1,.

M/s Raheja Developers Limited.

Regd.

Oflice at: W4D, 204/5, Keshav Western Avenue, Cariappa Marg, Sai.

New Delhi- 1.1.0062. [Green Park, New Delhi) complaint No.

813 of 2023 813 of 2023 24.02.2023 2r.o2.202s Complainant Respondents Member Complainant Respondent for R1 Respondent for R2 2.

M/S ICICI Bank Ltd.

Registered Office: Landmark, Race Curse Circle, Vadodara 390007, Through Its Branch Office CORAM: Shri Ashok Sangwan APPEARANCE: Shri Geetansh Nagpal (Advocate) Shri Garvit Gupta [Advocate) Shri Vikas Vashisht (Advocate) ORDER 1.

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant/allottee under Section 31 of the Real Estate fRegulation and Development) Act, 2016 fin short, the Act) read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate [Regulation and Development) Rules,201.7 (in short, the Rules) for violation of section 1,1(4)(a) of the Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provision of the Act or the rules Page 1 of20 Y ffiHARERA ffi*eunuEw Complaint No.

813 of 2023 and regulations made there under or to the allottee as per the agreement for sale executed inter se.

A.

Unit and project related details 2.

The particulars of unit details, sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainant, date of proposed handing over the possession, delay period, if any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: S.

N.

Particulars Details 1,.

Name of the project Sector 78, Gurugram, 2.

Project area 3.

Residential Group Housing Colony 4. no and DTCP license validity status 101.06.2011 valid up to 5.

Name of licensee 6.

RERA Registered/ not registered Registered vide no.

32 of 201,7 dated 04.08. ted 04.08.201,7 7.

RERA registration valid up to Clearance + 6 months grace period in view of Covid- 19 B.

Date of environment clearances 23.1,0.2013 9.

Date of revised environment clearances 3t.07.201.7 [Note: - the date of revised EC is taken from the complaint no.

1681 of 2022 of the same projects being developed by the same promoter] Page?of20 / L8.7273 acres Nature of the project Sh.

Ram Chander, Ram Sawroop and 4 Others 10.

Unit no.

8-022,2nd floor [Page no.47 of the complaint) 1.1.

Unit area admeasuring 162t. sq. ft. (Page no.

52 of the complaint) 12 Allotment Letter 1,9.08.20t4 (page no.

48 of complaint) 13.

Agreement to sell L9.08.20t4 (Page no.

50 of the complaintJ 14.

MOU 'complaint) 15.

Tripartite Agreement 16.

Possession clause 4.2 Possessio That the Sellr posse.ssion of tl six B6l montl re specially road sewer & the Government, but subject to any Government/ thority's action, inaction or omission beyond the control of the Seller. e seller shall be entitled Ior t free grace period of six (6) months nstruction is not completed within 'od mentioned above.

The seller on ificate for occupation and use by the :horities shall hand over the Unit to the lhis occupation and use and subject to hoving complied with all the terms and his application form & Agreement To 'nt of his failure to take over and /or e the unit provisionally and/or finally 30 davs from the date of intimation in n Time and Compensation zr sholl sincerely endeavor to give rc Unit to the purchaser within thirty- \s in respect of 'TAPAS' Independent rA eight (48) months in respect of iR'from the date of the execution of nt to sell and after providing of However, th compensatior in case the co the time peri obtaining cert CompetentAut Purchaser for t the Purchaser t conditions of t sell. ln the eve occupy and us, allotted within ffiHARERA, ffi- GURUGRAM Complaint No. plaint No.813 of 2023 Page 3 ofZO { Annexed but undated, [Page 104 of complaint) writing by the seller, then the same shall lie at his/her risk and cost and the Purchaser shall be liable to compensation @ Rs.7/- per sq. ft. of the super area per month os holding charges for the entire period of such de\ay.........,. " (Page no.57 of the complaint).

77.

Grace period Allowed As per clause 4.2 of the agreement to sell, the possession of the allotted unit was supposed to be oJfered within a stipulated timeframe of 36 months of 6 months is allowed. has not completed the project in unit is situated and has not 'pation certiftcate by May 2015.

As sell, the construction of the project 18.

Due date of possession L9.

Total sale consideration r at page no.158 of the 20.

Amount paid complainant by the 1,7 /- Credited in the account of the r at page no.160 of the 2t.

Occupation certificate /Completion certificate Not received 22.

0ffer of possession Not offered ffi ffi, Complaint No.

813 of 2023 Page 4 ofZ0 B, Facts of the complaint 3.

The complainant has made the following submissions: - 1,9.02.2018 (Note: - 36 months from date of agreement i.e., t9.08.201,4 + 6 months grace period is allowed) HARER& UGRAM complaint No.813 of 2023 That the complainant booked an apartment bearing Unit No.

B-022, Tower-B admeasuring 1,621,.39 sq. ft. in the project of the respondent namely'Raheja's Revanta'to which the respondent no.

1 issued an allotment letter dated 19.08.2014 to the complainant.

Thereafter, the complainant paid a booking amount of Rs.

13,25,000 /- vide Cheque No.

719396 dated 28.05.2014 drawn on ICICI Bank.

That the complainant executed an agreement to sell dated 19.08.2014 which was signed between the Complainant and Respondent No.

1 i.e,, Raheja Developers Ltd. for a Total GUR I.

II.

IIL That the Complainant has made a payment of Rs.1,39,70,949 /- as per the Ledger Account issued by the Builder dated 06.1,2.2022 and an amount of debit amount of Rs.

L,57,40,881,f .

40,881,f .

The complainant has paraid more than 920/o of the costs by 20.09.2019 as per the demands of the Ilespondent No.1 which are as per the construction linked plan.

It is vital to state that the Construction Linked plan was mischievously designed by the Respondent No.1 to ensure that he could take payments without having reached the commensurate progress.'fhe llespondent No.1 has taken more than 920/o of the Total Sale Consideration, without having even completed600/o of the project.

That as per the apartment buyer's agreement clause 4.2, the respondent no. t had promised the complainants to handover the physical possession of the dwelling apartment /unit by within 4B Page 5 of2O in the account of IV. -/ consideration of Rs.

1,43,29,098/- as per the payment plan annexed along with the agreement to sell. ffiHARERA ffi- eunucnAM Complaint No.813 of 2023 months from the date of execution of agreement to sell.

Therefore, the due date comes out to be 19.08.2018.

That the respondent number 1 sent a letter to respondent number 2 giving them a permission to mortgage on the unit no.

B-OZZ situated on the second floor of the building 'llaheja Revanta.' wherein the respondent no.

1 mentioned that they have sold the said unit to the complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.

1,43,29,098/- except electricity and water connection charges and registration charges as applicable. lf agreement to sell and permission to mortgage, .

Upon execution of agreer the respondent no.

L ndum of Understanding dated 26.09.2014 which was tween the complainant and respondent no.

1 which lays down developer has offered floor to the complainant.

As per clause 3 of the MOU, th e MOU, the ondent no. t has confirmed that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.

23,30,000/- to the The complainant sends an email to the ICICI regarding the frequent calls from Raheja developers. streamline the whole process. e process.

The bank obliges by sending a mail to Raheja by sending them a mail to not to contact the complainant.

VIII.

That the various mails by the bank sent to Raheja developers showing compliance by them to the requests of the complainant and also shows clear accountability on their part.'fhe complainant again sends an email to the ICICI Bank reiterating his complaint of the Raheja Developers contacting him.

The ICICI wealth Page 6 of2O V.

VI. the details of the project. 'fhe number B-022 admeasuring VII. ffiHARERA ffi-- eunuet?nrrl Complaint No.

813 of 2023 management team complies by asking the property team to sort out the issue.

The complainant exercises his buyback option well as per advised by the wealth manager of the ICICI Bankwithin the time prescribed of 36 months as per the Memorandum of Understanding signecl between the parties.

Respondent number 1 i.e., Raheja developers confirm the buyback option exercised by the complainant through an email sent to the complainant.

Another email from the ICICI wealth manager assuages the complainant that he shall get his respondent number 2 as complying with the terms and conditions of the MoU signed between them. 'l'hey are applying delaying tactics o ; of various kinds which is causing the complaint after the complainant mailed assures the complaint that th in Bhagat.

ICICI bank again ng to coordinate lvith the Raheja developers.

A conference call involving all the three stakeholders is to be done to sort out the problem.

After getting reassurances from Raheja developers about getting his money back and payment of pre- EMIs on time, they send another mail about the subvention extension but they also promise the complainant that they will honour the delay interest of 1B percent as promised in the agreement.

After getting tired with the defaults on EMIs on part of the Raheja developers, the complainant PageT ofZo IX.

X. ffiHARERA ffi-EnuennHl complaint No. plaint No.

813 of 2023 sent another email to the ICICI bank setting out his grievances and the expectations from them.

The ICICI bank acknowledges the mail and again assuages the complainant that are following up the matter with the ICICI Bank.

To utter dismay of the complainant, respondent number 2 informed him that since they were not privy to the MoU signed between Raheja developer and Viral Mehta and therefore they cannot do anything.

The complainant received a mail from the respondent number 1 i.e., XI. forward with the payment of the pre-EMIs. 'l'hey informed the complainant that they are serious liquidation crunch and w'hatever funds they have needs to go towards the completion of the 'Revanta' project.

Therefore, the complainant till 06.12.2022, paid funds they have needs to rrds a total amount of Rs.

1,,39,7 0,949 / ' out of a total sale consideration a total amount of Rs. of Rs.

L,57,40,881/- till XII. king of aforesaid unit it was duly rassured, sed by the Respondent No, 1 that the said unit and real estate project will be ready to occupy by the complainant by 48 months as per clause 4.2 of the Builder [3uyer Agreement.

That since the date of booking and after the receipt of 920/o part of the payment, the builder has been purposely delaying the construction of the project and the flat.

XIII.

In addition to above default the Respondent formalised the agreed Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.09.2014 "MoU" with the complainants facilitating an arrangement of Pre-EMI scheme date.

That at the time of boo represented and promi Page B of 2o ^/ HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

813 of 2023 wherein the buyers were not required to pay any EMI/interest till the date of possession.

However, the builder has admittedly defaulted in the same by its exorbitant delays and ICICI Bank has been intimidating, freezing accounts of the complainant, leading to loss in CIBIL score, destroying the financial score for further financial and other activities, fines, loss of opportunit opportunities, encashment of other assets under distress by the complainants XIV.

At this juncture, it is imperative to highlight that the Builder has approached the Complainant, at numerous occasions, to settle the issue of Buy-back, to te the buyback offer but which was a mischievous attempt by it the Builder has consciously which makes it amply clear that to the Buy-Back scheme with XV. the Complainant and the same cannot be denied or disputed.

As per clause 6 of the MoU the Builder admits to the special scheme and arrangement of specific loan for the Complainant which brings out the nexus between the Respondent No.

1 & Respondent No.

2.

36 months from date of execution thereafter the Respondent No, 1 ' Accordingly, the builder was required to pay Pre-limi interest upto Builder Buyer Agreement to continue the payment of Pre EMI as per the Terms and Agreement of Buy-Back MolJ, which were not paid.

The loan account statement clearly sets out the defaults on part of the Builder in adhering to the agreement.

XVI.

Additionally, the builder has defaulted under Clause B of the MoU wherein it was agreed that the Buyer is considered under the buy- back scheme and should the Buyer requests for cancellation of the said unit within 33-36 months, the Builder will be required to return the entire amount, clear all banks dues and additionally pay Page 9 of 20 HARERA GURUGRAM xtx.

Complaint No.813 of 2023 Rs.

1,400/- sq.ft. as premium.

However, till date the builder despite agreeing to entitlement of the buy - back scheme has failed to act upon any of the conditions mutually agreed to.

XVII.

The Respondent No.

1- delayed/failed to make the payment of the Pre-Emi as per the MoU resulting in severe financial loss, losses in making EMI payments, loss of opportunity, under duress selling of other assets at losses, intimidations by the Bank and hardship to the Complainant.

The Builder has failed to pay the premium of XVIII. of XVIII. llage Shikopur, Sector 78, a loan from ICIC Bank which is at the cost of the Complainants and has enriched the Defendants, It can be observed that the Builder has mischievously induced the Complainant for a loan and thereby directed that money to its own account, enjoyed the entire amount at a low cost in connivance with Respondent No.

2 and refused to provide the unit or the buy-back scheme which was mutually agreed.

That the complainant several times requested the Respondents telephonically as well as personal visits at the office for the Page 10 ofZ0 XXI.

That the Respondents by providing bad planning, false and Unit along with Fina charges, costs and i and in this pro purely criminal Complaint No.

813 of 2023 ICICI Bank and all applicable nies arising out of promises wrongfully, which is ent has also played a fraud fabricated advertisement, thereby, concealing true and material facts about the status of project and mandatory regulatory compliances, wrongfully induced the complainant to deposit their hard-earned money in their so-called upcoming project, with sole dishonest intention to cheat them and cause wrongful loss to them C.

4.

HARERA GURUGRAM regularization of the ICICI Ioan account on account of default in Pre- EMI and met with the officials of Respondents in this regard and completed all the requisite formalities as required by the respondents but despite that the officials of Respondent's Company did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant and the lingered the on one pretext or the other.

The compelling actions of the Builder has coerced the Complainant to seek refund of the payment made towards the purchase of the upon ICICI Bank which was facilitating the loan amount in favour of the buyer and taking untimely payments without reaching the right stage of progress concealing a lot in the milestone of construction.

Relief sought by the complainant: The complainant has sought following relief[s). i. ief[s). i.

Direct the respondent to refund the paid-up amount along with prescribed rate of interest.

Page 11 of2O ,/ xx. ffiHARERA ffi- eunuGRAM Complaint No.813 of 2023 5.

The respondent/promoter put in appearance through Advocate and marked atte n dance o n 2 6.0 4.202 4, 73 .1,2.202 4 and 2 1,.02.2025.

D esp ite specific directions for filing of reply, it failed to comply with the orders of the Authority.

It shows that the respondent was intentionally delaying the procedure of the court by avoiding filing of written reply.

Therefore, in view of above, vide proceedings dated 03.11,.2023, the defence of the respondent was struck off, However, in the interest of justice, the respondent was given a liberty to file written submissions Page 12 of2O 6.

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

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

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

D. |urisdiction of the authority 7.

The Authority observes that it has territorial as well as subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for the reasons given below.

D.l Territorial iurisdiction B.

As per notification no.

1,/92/201,7-ITCP dated 1.4.1,2.201-7 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana, the jurisdiction of Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram district for all purposes.

In the present case, the project in question is situated within the planning area of Gurugram district.

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

D.lI Subiect-matteriurisdiction ffiHARERA ffi* eunuennu Complaint No.813 of 2023 Section 1,1,(4)[a) of the Act, 201,6 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottees as per agreement for sale. for sale.

Section 11(a)(a) is reproduced as hereunder: Section 77 ft) fhe promoter shall- (a) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sole, or to the association of allottees, as the case may be, till the conveyance of all the apartments, plots or buildings, as the case moy be, to the allottees, or the common areas to 9. the association of allottees or the competent authoriet, as the case may be; Section 3 -Functions of the Authority: 34(fl of che Act provides to eni of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees an estate ogents under this Act and the rules and regulations 10.

E.

So, in view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, the authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non- compliance of obligations by the promoter.

Direct prescribed rate r 1,1,.

In the present complaint, E.

I ready reference. "Section 78: - Return of amount and compensation 1B(1).

If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot, or building.- (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case moy be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation ofthe registration under this Act or for any other reoson, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plol building, os the case mdy be, with interest at such rate as may be the unt paid by him in respect of rate as provided under reproduced berlow for Page 13 of2O ,{ HARER& GURUGRAM complaint No. plaint No.

813 of 2023 prescribed in this beholf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided 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 honding over of the possession, ot such rate os may be prescribed." (Emphasis supplied) 1,2.

Clause 4.2 of the buyer's agreement dated 19.08.2014 provides for handing over of possession and is reproduced below: 4.2 Possession Time and Compensation That the Seller shall sincerely endeavor to give possession of the tJnit to the purchaser within thirty-six (36) months in respect of 'TAPAS' Independent Floors and forty eight (48) months in respect of 'SURYA TO m the date of the execution of the Agreement to sell o 'ng of necessary infrastructure specially road sector by the Government, but subject to Government/ Regulatory authority's control of and reasons beyond the e period mentioned to the Purchaser having of this application form & to take over and /or occupy and use the and/or finally allotted within 30 days from the da same sholl lie at hi iting by the seller, then the and the Purchaser shall be ever, the seller shall be entitled for period of six (6) months in case the of the super areo per month f such de|ay........... " 13.

At the outset, it is relevant to comment on the preset possession clause of the agreement wherein the possession has been subjected to providing necessary infrastructure specially road, sewer & water in the sector by the government, but subject to force majeure conditions or any government/regulatory authority's action, inaction or omission and reason beyond the control of the seller.

The drafting of this clause and incorporation of such conditions are not only vague and uncertain Page 14 of2O not liable to ffiHARERA ffi- GuRIGRAM Complaint No. plaint No.813 of 2023 but so heavily loaded in favour of the promoter and against the allottees that even a single default by the allottees in making payment as per the plan may make the possession clause irrelevant for the purpose of allottees and the commitment date for handing over possession loses its meaning.

The incorporation of such a clause in the agreement to sell by the promoter is just to evade the liability towards the timely delivery of subject unit and to deprive the allottees of their right accruing after ent as to how the builder has such a mischievous clause no option but to sign on the dotted lines.

1,4.

Due date of handing over poss( period: As per clause 4.2 of the allotted flat/unit was supposed be offered within a stipulated timeframe of 36 months plus 6 months grace period from the date of r's agreement was executed the Authority is taking these 36 months from date of execution of the buyer's agreement.

Since in the present matter the BBA incorporates unqualified reason for grace period/extended period in the possession clause.

Accordingly, the authority allows this grace period of 6 months to the promoter at this stage.

Thus, the due date for handing over of possession comes out to be 19.02.201,8.

Page 15 of2O ffiHARERA ffi* eunuennrv Complaint No.

813 of 2023 Admissibility of refund along with prescribed rate of interest: The complainant is seeking refund the amount paid by him in respect of the subject unit with interest at prescribed rate as provided under rule 15 of the rules.

Rule 15 has been reproduced as under: Rule 75, Prescribed rate of interest- [Proviso to section 12, section 78 and sub-section (4) and subsection (7) of section 191 (1) For the purpose of proviso to section L2; section 18; and sub-sections (4) and (7) of section 79, the "interest at the rote prescribed" shall be the State Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate +20k. rate +20k.: Provided that in case the State Bank of lndia marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) is not in use, it shall be replaced by such benchmark lending rates which the State Bank of lndia may fixfrom time to time for lendiryT to the general public.

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

Consequently, as per website of the State Bank of Inclia i.e., https://sbi.co.in, the marginal cost of lending rate [in short, MTJLRJ as Jy, the prescribed rate of +2o/o i.e., 1L.L0o/o.

18.

On consideration of the documents available on record as well as submissions made by the parties, the authority is satisfied that the respondent is in contravention of the section 1,1,(4)(a) of the Act by not handing over possession by the due date as per the agreement.

By virtue of clause 4.2 of the agreement to sell, the due date of possession comes out to be 1,9.02.2018 for the reasons quoted above.

Keeping in view the fact that the complainant/allottee wishes to withdraw from the project Page 16 of2O 15.

16.

1,7. ffiHARERA ffi- eunuennH,r Complaint No.

813 of 2023 and is demanding return of the amount received by the promoter in respect of the unit with interest on failure of the promoter to complete or inability to give possession of the unit in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or duly completed by the date specified therein.

The matter is covered under section 1B(1) of the Act of 2016.

The due date of possession as per agreement for sale as mentioned in the table above is 1,9.02.2018 and even after a passage of more than 7 possession of the allotted n made to the allottee by the respondent/promo f the view that the allottee cannot be expected to wait end essly for taking possession of th sion of the unit 19. occupation certificate or what is the status of construction of the project.

In view of the above-mentioned fact, the allottee intend to withdraw from the project and is wellwithin the right to do the same in view of section 1B[1) of the Act,2016.

20.

Moreover, the occupation certificate/completion certificate of the project where the unit is situated has still not been obtained by the respondent/promoter.

The authority is of the view that the allottee cannot be expected to wait endlessly for taking possession of the allotted unit and for which he has paid a considerable amount towards PageLT of2O / ffiHARERA ffi* GtnuGruM complaint No.

813 of 2023 the sale consideration and as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt, Ltd, Vs.

Abhishek Khanna & Ors., civil appeal no.

57BS of 2019, decided on 17.07.2027 "....

The occupation certificate is not available even as on date, which cleorly amounts to deficiency of service, The allottees cannot be made to woit indefinitely for possession of the apartments allotted to them, nor can they be bound to take the apartments in Phase 1 of the project.......".

21,.

The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases o/ Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited Vs State of U,P, and Ors. (supra) reiterated in case of M/s Sana Realtors Private Limited & other Vs Union of India & others SLP (Civil) No.

73005 of 2020 decided on 12.05.2022. it was observed: 25.

The unqualified right of the allottee to seek refund referred Under Section 1B(1)(a) and Section 19(4) ofthe Act is not dependent on any contingencies or stipulations thereof. lt appears that the legislature has consciously provided this right of refund on demand as en unconditional absolute right to the allottee, if the promoter fails to give possession of the apartment, plot or building within the time stipulated under the terms of the agreement regardless ofunforeseen events or stay orders ofthe Court/Tribunal t/Tribunal, which is in either woy not attributable to the allottee/home buyer, the promoter i:; under an obligation to refund the amount on demand with interest at the rate prescribed by the State Government including contpensation in the manner provided under the Act with the proviso thot if the ollottee does not wish to withdraw from the prolect, he shall be entitled for interest for the period of delay till handing over possession at the rate prescribed." 22.

The promoter is responsible for all obligations, responsibilities, and functions under the provisions of the Act of 201.6, or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per agreement for sale under section 1,1(4)(a).

The promoter has failed to complete or is unable to give possession of the unit in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or duly completed by the date specified therein.

Accordingly, the promoter is liable to the allottee, as he wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy Page 18 of2O 23.

HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No,813 of 2023 available, to return the amount received by it in respect of the unit with interest at such rate as may be prescribed.

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

As such, the complainant is entitled to refund of the entire amount paid by him at the prescribed rate of interest i.e., rate IMCLR) applicable as on date +20/oJ as prescribed under rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate Development) Rules, 201,7 from the date of I date of refund of the amount within the ti Lle 16 of the Haryana Rules ines 2017 tbid.

G.

Directions of 24.

Hence, the authori directions under rrder and issues the following obligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted to the authority under section 3 (fl: i.

3 (fl: i.

The respondent/pro to ensure compliance of refund the entire amount received by it from the complainant along with interest at the rate of 1,1,.1,0o/o p.a. as prescribed under rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,201.7 from the date of each payment till the actual date of refund of the deposited amount.

Out of total amount so assessed, the amount paid by the bank f payee, be refunded in the account of bank and the Page 19 of2O ty hereby pe section 37 HARERA complaint No.

813 of 2023 balance amount along with interest will be refunded to the complainant.

A period of 90 days is given to the respondent to comply with the directions given in this order and failing which legal consequences would follow.

The respondent is further directed not to create any third-party rights against the subject unit before full realization of the paid-up lu iv, amount along with interest thereon to the complainant.

Even if, any transfer is initiated with respect to subject unit, the receivables shall be first utilized for clearing dues of complainant/allottee.

25.

26.

Page 2O of 2O I Estate R .2025.

GURUGRAM (Ashok Mem