PREETI RANJAN SAHA vs OCEAN SEVEN BUILDTECH PVT. LTD.

CompJ'ntNo lzUl of202l BEFORE THE HARYANA RIAL ISTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM 1ZO2 of 2023 20,os.2025 Compbinant I {rHARERA S-cunLnnrvr Complaint no.: Date ofdecision : Iurs.

Preeh Ranian Saha B 8l0o 2 ' Floor. \4dyfiel.l Lar.lr.

Brrn' SqJdr..

Scctor 50, Nirvana Country, South City Z, Curugran_ 1?2ota Versus N{/s Ocean Seven Buildtech Private Ljmited Regd.

Office Atr - 505-506, 5'i F]oor, B_4, Spaze I Tech ,'.,rk.arrnr Eodd se,ror 49.

Gurugram- lZl0l8.

CORAM: ShriVijay Xumar Coyal ShriAshok Sangwan APPEARANCE: shri Yogesh Kilhorc [Advocate] Sh.i Arun Yadav (Advocatel ORDBR I The present complaint has been ff led by the complainanVallottee under section 31 ofth€ Realsstate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 [in short,theAco read with rule 28 oi the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Developmentl Rules, 2017 (in short th€ Rules) for violation of section 11(4)(a) of the Act wherein it is inlerolrd prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provisions oftheActorthe Rules and regulations madethere underorto the allottees as per the agreement for s.le executed inler 5e.

Chairman 2 P" GURUGRAIV Proiecl and unlt related details Th€ particulars of unit details, sale conslderatioc the amount paid by the complainant, dateofproposed handing overthe possession, delayp€riod,ilany, have been detdrled in rhe followrng rabular form: fsr.

No.

I Particulars *HARERA Complainr No.

1202 of 202l 1.

I Name ofthe proieci Natureoftheproiect Affordablehousinsproiect 23 nf2018 dared 02.05.2018 2.It 4, 0105 2021 12.10.2014 Burldrng 1810.2018 2010.2023 months CovlD extensionl ; ] byrhe complarnanton p.8e 1 I or 0nduding6 l tl t1 tAs allesed by the comphinanr on pase Allotment letter issued in favou r oi complainant on Possession clause as per 305,3.d floor.

Towe.4 [P:ss?Z llerrrlt4l 565 sq. ft. ofcarpet area along with 99 sq. ft ii""i,l'iilffi-.,,,.,r 24.06. .,r 24.06.2079 L tpase 17 orcomplaintl The compdny sholl sincerely endeovour to Lanple@ the contuuctbn oid onet the po$e$on oJ the sdtd unn wihtn frve yeors Jrom the dote oJ the rc.eiving oJ llcense (^Comnitment Perio.l"), but subte.t to farce najeule !b!!9!Iintr 49!99!9 sdL!!!,- 13.03 20r9 2A 07.2018 L 1l *HARERA !$- crrnrrcnlnl ComplrinrNo tZ02 or2023 I pdlnent ol installnents Hawever, in coe P.qe 29 oicohlrhintl conpletes the co$truction pnor tu the penod ol 5 yeoB the Allattee shall not roiv ony obkction in toking the po$esion after poynent ol rcmdining sole pnce ond other charges stipuloted in the Agreenent ta Sell, The Compdnt, on obtoining cerrifcote fot occupadon ond use by the Conpetent Autharnies shollhdnd overthesoid unit tathe AlliLLee lar hx/het/then occupotian and use, suL'ject tu the Allottcc hoting conplied wnh oll the te s an.t candxtans oJ the 'otd Polict ond Agreenent ta Sell on.l poynents aode as per Po!nent Plan. lt n furtherasreel b), the Allottee Lhot Lhe Develapersholl not he l@ble Ior debr nl conpletion ofconstuctian, in coy allor.e ha)eute candxn)n ondln the detot is cuuse.l due ta non canpletion ol caNtrunion aJ soid conpIex/building/unit. tn the eventfa nunbetAllottee(s) dre notpoying due itstollnentt on tine ar o nunbe. af Alla\ee@ hos withdrdwn their oppli.ation dlte r a\lo tmen t of u n it a r o nu h ber aI u n)ts h o s bet!1 cnncelled due ta nanputment of due i n sto I I ne n ts o t oth eNi se..

1(tr, olthe Affordobte Eousing Policy,201i Alt such prcjects shott be rcquited ta be necesorjlf completed wthtn 4 veo* fron the aporcnl af bui)ling pldns ot srunt ol enironnental cleo.once, whichever 1s lote.

This date shall be relerred ta os the "date al .onnencenent ol projec{ Iot the purpoe oI I thts Doticy.

The llce et shdll aot be rcnewed I beyond the ei.l4 reo6 pedod lrom the dote ol .o n ne n. enent of D roi ecL i oilo2i--"-- Galculated from the date of envrronment dearance dated 10.10. ted 10.10.2019 bernB larer + 6 months is per HARERA notrtrcarion no.9/3' 2020 dared 2605 2020 for rhe prorects Due daie ofposseseon l4 1!

HARERA GURUGRA[/ . occupation certtqals , Offe, ofoo$essinn Complarot No.

1202 of202l having completion date Rs 23,0s,500/.

20 tl.

Facts ofthe complalnt The complainant has made thefollowing submiss,ons in the complaint: - I That the complainant, namcly, Mrs.

Preeti Ranian Saha on 18.10.2018 booked a flat by paying Rs.1,15,475l-in the Affordable Croup Housing prolect being developed by the Respondent known as "ColiHe,ghts" locaied at sector - 69, Curugram, HaryaDa.

Thereafter respondent has allotted flat no.305, Tow.r- 4, 3rd Floor,2 BHK having carpet area 565 sq. ft. and balcony area 99 sq. ft. in thefavorofcomplainantbeing a successfulallottee, in the said project. ll That, the allotment of the unit, on 24-06.2019, the buyer's agreement was ex.cuted bet\{een thecomplainantand the respondent ol the said unrt Thc complainant paid as and lvhen demanded by the respondent a totalsum ol Rs 9,35,348/- inclusjve of disbursed home loan amount by the HDFC Bank as the complainant has obtarned the same to purchase said flat in the IIl.

That on 01.07.2022 due to non-disbursal of home loan amount by the HDIC bank on account oi slo\,\, pace of const.uction, the complaint deslres to surrender the sa,d flat and wrote a surrender/cancellation letter to the lPaec 23 o 01.07.2022 lPaAe ss olcomplaintl I}HARERA .-db- Gu?uGRA[/ CohblainrNo.

1202o12023 IV Respondent and also requested to refund his anount as perclause 5(iijl (h) ofAffordable Housing Policy, 2013 and the same has been received by the 'Ihat pursuant to the above, compla,nant time and again make numerous calls and visits in the oftice ofrespondent and requested for the refund of his money as per the provisons otAliordable Housing Polcy, 2013 butthe r.spondent dld Dot pay any heed towards the genuine request of the complainantand sta.ted neglectinghim from one p. rom one p.etext to other and Srab the hard earned money of the compla'nant.

Till date the respondent has failed to r.fund the amount of the said flat to the complainant.

The complaina n t is leit with no other efficacious remedy except to approach th is Authority, prefers the complaint for addressing his grievance. 'lhat this Authority is havrng a pecuniary jurisdiction and territonal jurisdiction to adiudicate and try this complaint as the subject matter property is within the ter.itorial h m its olthisAuthonry.

The cause olact'on tlrst arose when the respondent accepted the sLrrrender/ letter dated 01.07.2022 of the complainant The cause ol action again arose when the respondent orally deny to refund the total amount of Rs.9,35,348/ The cause olaction is still continuing as the respondent has still not reiunded thc paid amountin regardto the said flat to the com plainant C, 4 Reli€f sought by th€ complalnanc - The complainant has sought following reliefG): L D,rect the respondent to refund the amount received by it along with prescribed rate of interest on the date ofhearing, the authority explained to the respondent/ promoter about the contraventions as alleged to have been €ommitted in relation to section 11(41 fal of the act to plead guilty or not to plead guilty.

5.

GI]RUGRAN/ ly by the respondent respondent is contesting the complaint on u D.

Rep 6.

The I.

HARERA a..m.l.inrNo.

1202of 2023 the following grounds: That this Authority lacks jur,sdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint as vide clause 16.2 of the builder buyer agreement both the parties have unequivocally agreed to resolve any disputes through I ]V 'lhat the complainant is a wiUful delaulter and deliberately, rntentionally and knoivingly have not paid timely instalments. ]'hat starting from February 2023, the construction activities have been severely inrpacted due to the suspension oithe license and the freezing of accounts by the DTCP Chandigarh and HREM Gurugram, respectively This suspe This suspension and freezing ofaccounts represent a force majeure event beyond the control of the rcspondent.

The suspension of the license and freezing oiaccounts, starting frorn Feb 2023 till date, have created a zero_ timc scenario for lhe respondent.

Furthet there is no delay on the part ol the respond€nt p.oject as it is covered under clause number s.5 lorce N{ajeurc, which is beyond control orthc respondent.

That the fina1 EC is CTE/CTO which has been received by the respondent in FebrLrary 2018.

Hence the start date of proiect is Feb 2018 and rest details are as lollows. covid and NCT Rcstr-ictictions l)r1rt.rt. i ntillr lrt Lr.r I aovid lo.k down waiver NGTstay [3 months approx. rbrevery yea.)i.e 6*3 TotaLTime ext.nded to be cxtcnded months Fal' 22 ALLounts lreeTeJ & llcensc s!.pentlcd HARERA ComplarntNo lZ02 or z02l GURUGRAN/ further time to be extended tillthe unlreezingolthea.counts i.e.

Feb Nov 2023 (10 monthsl Finalproject compleriondatc tin case proiect h unfreezedl fu.ther time would beadded Nov-23 rill unfreezrnP lheaccourrs As per the table given above, the final date for the completion oi construction is Fcb 25 in case thc accounts are unfreezed by tbe comPeten! authority on the date ol filing ihrs reply.

Itom Feb 2023, the license has been suspended and accounts have been freezed by the DTCP Chandjgarl) and HRERA Gurugram.

7 Copies ofall the r.levaDt documents hnve been filed and placed on the record.

Their au ih entrcrty is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on thc basis ofthese undisputed documcnts and submission made bv the parties. lurisdiction of the Authority The authority observes that jt has territorial as well ns subject matter tursdiction to adiudicate the present conrplaint lor the reasons glven below.

E.l Territorialiurlsdictior 9.

As per notification no .1/92 /2077'lTCP dated 1412. ated 1412.2017issued bv Town and Country Plannrng Departmen! the jurisdicuon oi Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with offices situated in Gurugram.

In the present case, the proiect in question rs ntuated within the planning area oi Gurugram District' Therefore this authority has complete territorial iurisdiction to deal with the present E.ll Subiectmatteriurisdiction 10 S.ction 11[4](a) of thc Act,2016 Provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for s3le.

Section 1i{41(a) is reproduced as hereuDder: E.

HARERA Complainr No, 1202 of2023 GURUGRA1V (4) The ptonoter shall. (d) be retponsible lot all obhgotions, responsibilitjes ond l ctions undet the ptovisions of thk Act o. the rules ond regutonons notle thereundet or to the o ottees as per the ogre@ent for eh, ot to th. ossociotion aJolloftees, as the c6e noy be, ti &econvetonceofallthe o pa.the ntt, plats or b u i L1 i ng s, o s the ca se m ay be, to th e a llotteet ot the c a nnon o te d s ta the o $ocio t ia n al a lottee s ot the co h Petent au thofitr, osthe cose na! bei section 34-Functions olthe Atthontr: 34A af the Ad ptovtdes to ehsure conPlionce of the obligotions @st upon the prcnoters, the ollottees and the reol cstote ogentt under this Act ont) the rules ond r.gularionsnodethereundeL 11.

So, jn view ofthe provisions oftheAct quoted above, the authority has complete iu risdiction to decide the complaint regard ing non compliance of obligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the doludi.rring oiticer if pursued by thecomplainantat a laterstage.

12.

Further, the authority has no hitch in proceeding wlth the complaint and to grdnl d reliel or retund in tt,. p."..nt ,utt".,n ,i"[, otthe ludgemenr pas\ed by the Hon'ble Apex Coutt in Newlc.h Pto,,oteE and Developers Priwte Limited Vs State ol II,P, and oE.

P, and oE.

2021'2022 (1) RCR (Ctvtl), 357 and reiterated in case of M/s Sano Realtors Privdtc Llmlbd & other Vs Union ol tndia & others SLP (Civll) Na 13005 oJ 2020 decided on 12.05.2022 whercin it has h.en bid down as underl ''36.

Iion the shene of the Act ol which o tl.toiled reletqce hos b*n hode dnd tokkq notz af power of adiudkonoh delin@ted with the rcgu lator! auth oriE o nd adj u,, icoti ng olfrc 4, who t I nd I 1! c u I ls our is that okhough the Act indicotes the dstinct exprusions like refund','intaest, 'penaltr'ond dnpensonan, d contant rcoding al secnons 18 ond 19 d y nanilests thot when t tades to rcfund of the onolnt ond interest on the relund onouna ot dructinll polnent ol interest lor delove.l delver! ol pos*van, or penolry ond interest llereon, n is the rcgulototv outho ry which has the power to e@nine ond d.ternine the out one ol o complaint At the some tine, when it con$ to a qu$ton ol seeking the relief ol odjtdglng conpehtotion ontl interest theteon uhdq kctions 12 u, B ond 19, the od)tdrcatng oIi9r exclusivel! hos the powq to detqnine, kupins in viee the collective teodinq of Section 71 reod wid, secton 72 oI the Act il the adjudicotion unt1.r kctions 1?, 14, 10 ond 19 I 13.

1.1 HARERA ComplaintNo.

1202 of 2023 6URUGRA[/ other thon conpensation os envkoged, ilextended to the odjudicoting o\licet as p.ayed thot, in aut vteq, no!intend ta dpond the onbit a^d scope ol the pawe6 ond lunctians ofthe odjudicotins olfcer undet kction 71 ond thotwauldbe agoinst the na^ddre oItheAct2016." Hence, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases mentioned above, the authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint seeking reiund ofthe amount and interest on the refund Findings on ob,ections raised by the respoDdent ln the writteD submlsslonr F. lsslonr F.l Obiection regardinS complaiMnt ls ln breach of agreem€nt for non' invocation of arbltration, ]'he respondent has submitted that the complaint is not ma,ntainable for the reason that the agreement contains an arbitration clause which ref€rs to the dispure resolution mechanism to be adopted.by thd panies in the event otany djspute.

The authority is of th€ opinion that the jurisdiction of the authority cannot be tettered by the existence of an arbitration clause in the buyer's agreement as,t may be noted tbat sect,on 79 qf the Actbars the jurisdiction of civil courts about any matter which f:lls withh thd porview ofthis authority, or the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

Thus, tho intention to render such disputes as non-arbitrable seems to be clear.

Also, sectlon 88 of the Act savs thatthe provis,ons ofthisAct shall be in addition to and notin derogation ofthe provrsions or dnv other law ror rhF hme being in force.

Further. the authonty puts rel,ance on catena ofjudgments ofthe Hon'ble supreme court, particularlv it1 Nationat Seeils corporation Llmiteil v.

M.

Nadhusudhan Reddy & Anr. (2012) 2 SCC 506, whercin it has been held that the remedies provided under the Consumer P.otection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the oth.r laws in force, consequently the authority would not be bound to reier parties to arbit.ation even if the agreement between the parties had an arbitration clause.

Therefore, by applying same analos/ the presence of l5. l,u rth e r, in ,4/aab .tinS h ond ors. vs.

Emaor MGf Land Ltd and ors,, Consumer case no.701of2015 declcled on 13.07.2017,rhe National Con s u mer Disputes Redressal Commrssion, New Dclhi (NCDRC) has held that !hearbitration clausc in agreements betlveen the complainants and builders could not ci.cumscribe th. ju.isdiction of a consumer Further, while considering the issue of nraintainability ofa conrplaint before a coDsunrer fo.um/commission in the fact ol a. fact ol a. cxistirrg arbitration clause in the builder buyer agreement, the hon'ble Supreme Court in case.i.led as M/s Emaor MGF Land Ltd. v.

Altab Singh in revision petition no.2629.30/2018 in civil appeal no.23512'23513 o12017 decide.l on 10.12.2018 has upheld the aforesaid judgemenl oINCDRC and as provided in Article 141 oi the Constitution of India, the law declared by the supreme Court shall be binding on all courts withiD the territory ol lndta and accordingly, the authorityis bound by the aioresaidvielv.

Thereiore, in view of thr above jLrdgements and considering the provision ofthe Act, the authority is of th. viei! that complninant is well ivithin his right lo seek a special remedy rvail.rble rn a beneficial Act such as the Consumer Protection Act and REM Act.

2016 instead or going in for an arbitration.

Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that this authority has the reqursite jurisdiction to entertarn the coDrplarnt aDd that the dispule does not require to be rcterred to arbitrntion F.ll Obie.tions reBardingror.e majcurc.

16 The respondent/prornoter has r.rised the contention that the construction of th. project has beel delayed due to lorce nrajeure circumstances such as ban on const.uction due to orders passed by NG'1, maior spread of Covid"19 across worlds,ide. suspension ol license by the DTCP, Chnndigarh and lreezing of *HARERA !S- eunuennv arbitration clause could not Complrint No.

I202 of2023 be con.trued to tdke dwdy rl e iur .di.r.on oI rl", ComplaLnr No.1202 of 202J *HARERA S-cLrnrcnm,t accounts by HRERA Gurugram etc. which is beyond the control of the respondent and are covered under clause 5.5 of the agreemenl The respondent has iurther submitted that suspension ofthe license and freezing ofaccounts, starting from Feb 2023 till date have created a zero-time scenario for the respondent.

Furthermore, the nnal EC is CTE/CTO which has been received by the r€spondent in February 2018, hence the start date ofproject is Feb 2018.

Feb 2018.

However, all the pleas advanced in this regard are devoid of merits.

As per clause 1(ivl ortheAffordable Housing Policy,2013 it is prescribed that 1Al sr.n projectsshallbe requiredto be necessotily completed within 4 years lron the date olapproval afbuilding plans or grant of envirynmental clearance, whichever is later.

Thisdate sha be referrhd to q,s theldate ofcommen.ement ofproject'fo. the purpose otth,s policy.The respondenthas obtalned environment clearance and building plan approval in respect of the said project on 30.11.2017 a.d r60q.2016 re(pectively.

Theretore, the due date ot possession is berng calculated from the date of environmental clearance, being later.

Further, an extension ol b monrhs i< granted to the respondenr in view ol nolificalron no.

9/3-2020 dated 26.05.2020, on account oi outbreak of Covid'19 pandemic.

Thereiore, the due date of possession wa5 30,05.2022 As far as oth€r contentions of the respondent w.r.t delay iri colstruction of the project is concerned, the same are disallowed as firstlythe orders passed by NGT banning construction in the NCR region was for a very short period of nme and thus, cannot be said to impact the respondent-builder le-ading to such a delay in the completion.

Secondly, the licence ol the project of the respondent was suspended by DTCP, Haryana vide memo dated 23.02.2023, due to grave violations made by it in making compliance ofthe terms and €onditions of the licence.ln viewofthe sameand to protect the interest of the allottees, the bank account ofthe respondent related to the proiect was frozen by this Authority Page u ol15 C.n.LaintNo.

1202ot2023 frHARERA -&-crrnranrur,r vrde ord.r dated 24.02.2023. lt rs well settled principle that a person cannot take benefit olhis own wrong Findings on the reliefsoughtby the complainant c,l Directthe respondentio refund the paid-up amount along.with interest The complainant was allotted a unit bearing no. earing no.305, 3ri floor, in tower4, in the project olthe respondent at the sale consjderat,on of Rs.23,09,500/- under the Affordable Croup Housing Policy 2013.

The possession of the unit was to be otltred within 4yearstrom the app roval of build ing plans (20.07.2018) or lron) the date of environment clearance [10.10.2019), whichever is later, wh'ch conrcs out to be 10.10.2023 calculated from the dale olenvironment clearance berng latcr.

Further, as per HARERA notification no.9/3-2020 dated 26.05.2020, an extcnsion of 6 months is Sranted for the prolect having completion date on or after 25.03.2020.'lhe completion date of the aloresaid project in which lhe subject unit is be,ng allotted to the compla,nant 's :lo 11 2021 r.e.. aher 25.03.2020.

Therefore. an extension of 6 months is to be giv.n over and.rbove ths due date ofhandiDg over ofpossession the due dnte otpossession in view ofnotification no.9/3 2020 datcd 26 05.2020, on account ol Iorce majeurc conditions due to outbreak ol Covid_19 pandemic.

Therefor., thc due date ofhanding over ofpossession comes out to be 10.04.2024. 'lhe complainant paid a sum of Rs.9,35,349/_ out olthe totalsale.

Further, the complarnant has placed a letter date,J a1.07.2022 on page no.

55 of the conrplaint wherein the complsinant requcsted to the respondent company to cancet allatment afunx no.305, in tower 4 ol projectCa[ Heights in the nane oJ Prcetr Ranjo n Soho and refund of the pdymen t of Rs.9,3 5,3 48 / mode till dote The s.tid surrendcr requests letter was received by the representative of the respondent comPanY on 01.07.2022.

1U.

C.

17 {THARERA #anuGRAN/ 19.

As per the clause 5 [iii)th) oftheAfiordable C.m.La,ntNo 1202o1202:l by the State Government on 05.07.2019, the relevant pro!,ision is reproduced Housing Po1icy,2013 as amended Clause 5(iii) (h) ofthe atrordable housingpolicy 'Awaxins lktlot a naxnun oI25% olthetatalovoilobte nunber ol lots ovailoble lor allotmena nat aho be prcporcd . prcporcd .luring the drav of tan who con be ollered the oltatnent in cav nne of the succasJut allottees are not oble to renave the derciencies in theit applicotion \|ithtn the prescribed pe ad alli doys [Ah suftender olldtb! onr sudssful ollottee, the anou nt that con be lorleiled b! the calonizer in oddjtiontoRs.25,000/ shall not *ceed the following: . t.dl n.,'e oisur ender ofnatbefure .onrnrencemcnr,lPr!1.!l lbbl uDto 1 year l.om (he date of .ommencementof the Dr.lect [cc] Upro 2 year f.om the datc or commencement ot thc proiect ddl Arr.r 2 yerrs irom rhe datc or commencement of thc project s|ch foL' mor be @nsidered by the coavltttEc hr oller to those oppliconts lalling in the wolttng n,t bwvc. non rcnoval oI delciencies br ohJ su@stiul opplicant sholl n be considsed a, sunehdq oJ Jtot, ond na such detluction of k 2500a shott be oppli.able on such cdses, [on! wott listed cahddate do6 not wont to connnue in the waitng list, he na! teek wjthdmwalond the licenc@ sho rcfund th. baoking onount \|thin 30 dals, ||ithout inPosing on, peholty The \|aiting list sho be nointoined for o petiod of2 !q6, ofter whrch the boobns onount shatt be rclundea bdck to the woitlisted oppliconLs, \|nhout ony interesL All noh4ucce$fu] applndn5 shall be relunded bock the booking onount within 15 dqts ol hol di ns the drow of lots .

Complarnt No.

I202 of20ll RA RA[/ RE UG A URI G Since the surrender of the unit by the complainan! was done afte. commencement ol construciion, hence the respondent is entitled to forfeit anrount in accordance with as per the clause s (iii)(h) ofthe Atrordable Housins Policy, 2013 as amended by the State Government on 05-07.2019.

The date of commencemcnt ofproject has been defined undcr claus.

1[iv) to mean the date ofapp.ovalofbuilding plan or grant of environ mental clearance, whichever is laler.

In the jnstant case, the dare ol gr.rnt oi environment clearance i.e, 1010.2019 is later and hence. the same would be considered as date of commencement of project. f project. 'l herelore, the respondent/pronroter is directed to refund the paid-up amount airerdeductjon ol5% of th e consideration money io addition to Rs.25,000/- as per clause 5(iiil[h] ofthe ofAliordable Housing Policy 2013 as amended by the State Govenrment on 05.07.2019, along with interest @11.10% per annunt fronr the date surrender/withdraw oI allotment i.e., 01.07.2022 till the actual reJhzatlon of the amount.

Directions of the authority tlence, the authoriry hereby passes this order and issue the followingdi.ections under section 37 olthe Act to ensu re .ompliance olobligations casted upon the promorer as per the fLrnctions entrusted to theauthority undersection 34[f] of i.

The respondent/promoter is directed to reiund the paid_uP amount after dcduction oi5% ofthe consideration money in addrtion to Rs.25,000/_ as per clause s(iiil[hJ ofthe olAffordablc Housing Policy 2013 as ameDded by the Srate Covernment on 05.07 2019, along with interest @11.10% per annum trom the date surrender/withdraw ofallotment i.e.,01.07.2022 nll th. a.nr:! rp:liTarion ofthe amount.

2t.

H, 22 23.

24. (Astiok HARERA GURUGRAI'/ A period or 90 in this given to the order failing with the coyal) Complaint as wellas appl Files be consigned to registry Dated:20.05.2025 H UGI I4-w (Arun Kumar) Estate Regulatory Authority,