AMAN KATHURIA vs OCEAN SEVEN BUILDTECH PVT LTD

HARERA ComplaintNo.52S9of 2022 HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GIIRUGRAM GURUGRAI/ BEFORETHE NAMEOFTHT' BUILDER PROJECT NA]IIE Date of decision: 03.09.2024 O.€an s€ven Buildtech Pvt.

Ltd, The venetian, Sector- T0,Guruqrami Harya.a cR/'7745 /2022 cR/760/2A2l CR/6412/2022 cR/1257/2022 tR/72\Al2022 M/s oce.n Scven Buildtech M/s0ceanSeven Buildiech aR/5104/2422 M/s 0cean Seven Buildrech M/s 0cean Seveh Build!cch M/so.ean ScvenBuildtech M/s 0..anSeven Buildtcch M/s oc€an Sev€n Bu ldtech I 3 RA RAl\/ ARE URUG M: pH S-e ComplaintNo.5289012022 Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal Shri Ashok Sanswan I 2 3 ORDIR 'lhis order shall dispose ol8 complaints titled above filed belore this 3uthoriry under section 31 of the Real Esiate IRegulation .rnd Dcvelop me ntl Act, 2 0 1 6 {h.reinafter referred as the Act") read with ru le 28 ofihe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Developmen0 Rules, 2017 (hereinalterreferredas therules")forviolat,on olsection 11[4J[a] olthe Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible lor all its obligations, responsibilities and functions to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed inter se parties.

The core issues emanating from them are simila. in nature and the complainant[s] in the above referred matters are allottees ot the pro)ect. n.rnrely,'The Venetian", Sector 70, Gurugram, Haryana being developed by the respondent/promoter i.e., M/s Ocean Seven tsuildtech Private Limited.

The terms and conditions of the allotment letter, buver's ngreements, fulcrum of the issue involved in all these cases periarns to lailure on the part ofthe promoter to deliver timely possession of th. units in question thus seeking refund oithe unit alongwith 'ntcrest 'l'he details ol the complaints, unit no., date of agreement, possession clause, due date ofpossession, total sale consideration, total paid amount, and reliefsoughtare given in the table below: Thevenehdn,\e.1.

70, CurugrJn, llr, rJ ProiectNrm€a. iectNrm€a.dLocation Affordable eroup housing colony HARERA GURUGRA[/ auildinS plan approval ComplarntNo 5289o12022 103 0f2019 dated 05.09.2019 I i.en(ee ShreeRabn Laland othe.s 0?.02.2020 Resktered vrde no.39 o12020 dated 2?.10 2020 --l REnA Rqistered/ not occupation certincate Possession clause as ]ihe canpony shult sinrt el! endeavot to co Ptete the nnrtrd.1ton ond oller the posresJ,o, o/ rhe soi., unit \|ithin lve rears lrom the date ol the re@ivi,tg of tuense ("Comnitnent Perio.t ), but subjed ro Jorce mojelre clowe olthis Asreenent ond tintely p at ne 1 t oI i ns ta I I ne h tr by th e a ottee (s ). ] n,Ntt.t n.o\e the Conpony c.hpletes the.on!'rtn r pt rat tu the pe .d ol s yed6 the Attottee shol) not raisc o.t objedlon in toking the possession oler p ottEnt ol re no i, i t g sal e pri ce ond other th or ges stipulated in the Agreem.ntlosell lhc Lonpor) or obtoihihg reftificd| l$ o(updtion ont u$ hJ trn Cotnpctent Authorities shallhahd avetthc \ont rrn n) dE Attauee fo h\/tet/then a..upotu) lnn r\t sr\ect b the Allouee hav)ns Lonpt)!.t rtttt utl tht t ms an.lcondinont oi the so)d Pah.y dnl Altttt.inl to sett dnd porne!! t!g!b!: Pr!!!A9!LlJ!n 1(tv) ol the Allotdobte Housils Poti.y, 201 3 All such prcjec* shall be requned o be ne.essa.ilv cohpletcd within 1 ,eo6 ltun the opptovol ot bull. n0 plons or gront ol eni@nmentol cLomn e, \|hichever is loter.

This date rhott be rcferrett to os the "date of conhencetuent ol p.atect lor the pury^e oI this palk!. fhe licenvs sholl hot be renewed belond the said 4 yeo6 penod Lon the date alcannencen t olprciect DTCP license no.and other u HARERA GURUGRAN/ Cohpllin!No 5239oi2022 nfl l''1lrL rc I 13012022 R.rund ,3:3-1rot l aroiqw rP+,sor I h(re* ^P: omp'ami J md 3,33.?7r.

I -T:.j" \ cR/12s1t2022 tos I sun'bshukla ".","s."."t..",, L Bu"dtEh I PrMku kd ,..;oer l'*'r I nr.

IPas! r3or I co'Pr' l.,r I liintu\ tran-l ..:tli'::i-" lrs HARERA GURUGRAN,I ComplaintNo.5289oI2022 ,l l *HARERA $-crrnlrcnm,l Complaint No.

5289 of 20?2 . of 20?2 . ii,l '* ,"t"*a *m nui" ,tbr.virtions have bem used. rh€v,.

4 Dat. orfi lnsotcomPlai nepLy rc.civ.n by ihe .espondcnr Amounr pard by th.aloerr The facts of all the complaints ffled by the complainan(r/allotteeG) are similar. out ol the above mentioned case, the particulars of lead case CR/5289/2022 titled as Nlpun Shorma vs.

M/s Oceon Seven Buildaech Pva ltd. are being taken into consideration lordetermining the rights ofthe allottee(s).

Proiect and unit related details The particulars ofthe project,the details of sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainant, date of proposed handing over the possession, delay per,od, if any, have been detailed in the lollowing tabular form: lP3s.zaor !A l1AIil 89/2 HARE GURUG cR/52 t s_ 022 titled as Nipua Sharma Vs.

M/s Ocean Seven Buildtech PvL LtCl. =l vide no.

39 of 2020 dated 02.o9,2024 Afl ordable group housinB Lolony Lrcen(€ validity status 103 0f2019 dated 05,09,2019 valid upto 04.09.2024 Shree Ratan Laland others in coll.boration with M/s Ocean seven Buildte.h Pvt.

Ltd.

BuildinB z7,10,2020 07.02.2424 09.03.2021 lPaAe no.

19 oi.omplaintl iossession clause as Pet 1(tv) olthe Allordobte Housins Potiev 2013 Afto.dable housinE policy, All such proiects sholl be re'tu'ed t' be 2Ot3 nec$satiu codpleted wthin 4 veoB ton the (Page n,,. lcorlhe compldrntl lopptuvot oJ buttttt\g phns ot srcnt o[ l"ii- .-.t cteo.onrc whichaer 6 tate, Th6 do@ sholl bc teJetrcd to os the "dote ol condenceneht oJ prctqt" lot rhe purPo\e ot rhts poh.t fhe ln !4 sholl not bc teneePd \ betbnd th? sotd 4 yeo4 Pedon tod thc dot. at @!!ene!!!9r!-!y! -- 006, ground floor, towe.

5 lPage no.19 of (ompLaintl 571.105 sq.lt. ot ca.pet area cohnen@nert ofp.oi4t dleofpossession cannotbeas(erra,ned ComplaintNo.52S9of 2022 Totrl \Jle pn.c ofthe Uar SHARERA S-cLrnLcnnl,r 15 TT I Facts ofthe complaint The complainant has made thefollowingsubmissions in the complaintr ' That the complainanthave bookeda unit in the prolect nam ely "Venetia n" and was all nd was allotted unit bearing no.

006, ground floor, in tower no 5 Thus the complainant falls under the definition of 'allottee' undcr section 2(dl of the Act.

The respondent was respons,ble to develop the present prol'ct and falls under the definition of'promoter'as per section 2[2k] of the Act That the complajnant booked a unit in the subject project vide apPlication bearing no.

1640 and by pay,ng Rs1,r6,6711'to the respondent as booking amount.

Thereaft€r, the compl nant was auotted a unrt no' 006 in tower 5 havingcarpet area of571.105 sq. ft along wiih balcony area oI 98 sq. it. on 09.03.2021 after the draw of lors conducted on 09 03 2021 The complainant was issued a! allotment letter along with demand ol Rs.4,72,518/- and the said demand was paid bv the complainant 'lhat thc complainant had paid a sum oi Rs 8,83,785/ to the respondcnt out oltotal sale consideration of Rs.23,33,420l- before entering into BBA lvhich is clear violation oi section 13 of the Act 'lhc BBA was never executed betlveen the respondent and the complainant in .espect of the subiect unit.The respondentfailed to execute the BBA even aficraccepnng substantial amount of payments from the complainaDt.

The respondenl surrender/Cancellation by the complainant complaintNo.

5289 of 2022 Rs.23,33,420 / - lA! alleged by the complainant at page no.

Rs.8,83,785/- lAs per ledger dated 15,01.2022 at pagc '14012i22 lPage no.24 of conpleintl B, 6.

Ilt &H *S-e tv VI ARERA ComplainrNo.52S9of 2022 URUGRA[/ kept on issuing demand leBers ra,sing next instalment however, the .espondent had nothing to show for such demands as there was no progress at the site.

That the complainanthas been deceived by the respondentwho gave false assurance to the allottees that th€ project will begin constru€tion soon.

The fact is that the construction has not started yet, the respondent has cheated the complainant from their hard earned money. ned money.

That the complainant should be compensated as the complainant had to bear higher GsT charge aga,nst th6emount fo' the instalments olthe unit' The respondentwas charging GS{ d,f 8vo upon the complainant even arter the notification dated 01.04.2019 as per which not more than 10,6 of the amount can be charged as GS'I.

As per the said notification, only those projects which launched and started construcnon before 01.04.2019 are liableto bear 8%.

However, in case ofthe presentproiect, the construction had not begun even in the late 2020 Thus, charging GST is illegal and unjustined.

There is failure on part olthe respondent to handover possession of the subject unit to the complainantwithin the reasonable period and thus, the present complaint for seeldng th€ following reliei Reliefsought by the complalnanb ' The cornplainant has sought louowing relief(s): L Direct the respondent to refund tbe entire paid-up amount alongwith interest@ 18% p.a. from the dateofeach pavment. ll.

To conduct an inquiry into fraudulent acts of the r€spondent and cancelthe RERA registration for the proiect in question' IIL To impose a penalty amouDting to 5% ofthe project cost under sertion 60 of the Act on account otviolation of section 4 ofthe Act' c.

7. {THARERA $-eunuonnrr,,t lV.

Directthe respondent to Complaint No.

5289 ot2022 pay Rs.1,2 5,000/' for legalcost.

8.

The present complaint was filed on 1s'08'2022' On 2807'2023' the respondentwas direct to file the replywithin stipulated time period' but the respondent failed to comply with the orders of the authority However' despite a lapse of one and hallyear from the date ol filinS and more than seven months from the date ofpublication of notice on the newspapers' the rcspondent has railed to file reply within the stipulated nmelramc In view of the conduct ofthe respondent, on 08.12. on 08.12.2023, the authoritv is left with no option but to striking offthedelence ofthe respondent' 9 Copies of all the relevant documents have been filed and placed on the rccord.

Their authenticity is not in dispute Hence, the complaint c'n be decided on the basis of th€se undisputed documents and submission made by the complainant.

D. lurisdiction ofthe authority 10.

The authority observes that it has territorial as well as subiect mntter iurisdiction to adiudicate the present complaint for the reasons given D.l Territorialjurisdictlon 11.

As per notilication no 1/92/2077'1TCP dated 14 12 2077 \ssued bv'l own and Country Planning Department, the jurisdictio' oi Real Estate Rcgulatory Autbority, Gurugram shall be entire Curugram District for all purpose with offices situated in Gurugram' In the present case' the Prol'ct in question is situated within the pla'ning area ol Cumgr'rm Dinrict 'lhereiore, this authority has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal w'th the presen t comPlaint D.ll subiect matter iurisdiction HARERA Section 11(a)(al of th€ Act, 2016 Provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allotte€ as per agreement for sale.

Section 11(4)(a) is reproduced as hereunder: '(i) tt'" p,o.o", ,t ott' tot b" ,e<pan\ible tot olt oblqonoa\. tc\pontb nte' ond [Ln'tor' ulder rhe uotkDt ol .h'.

Att ot thP tute: and rPgutol@nt node thueunde; ot b the ottotFes 03 pet the osreen.nt lar sote ar to the ossociotian of ollott3t as the cose ov be, titl the convelonce of oll the oDotIn" 5, DtoB ot butldirgt, os th.co\? na! b"' tothP ahauec\' ot the .ohnon at eas to t hP o\sajotion olqllot@ct ot the conpcteqt out hot av' os the cose noy be; s.cti@ 34'Furcnons oJ the Author'llv: 34n at.ne Aft la\dstu Prture @apltuhce at thc abl9a'tor"a\t 'p;. he pt onoiea, rne o o.te6 @d LhercotP'bte ooPnb 'nde'thr Act ond the tul6 onll regdations (ndde tlercuntler' 13. ntler' 13.

So, in v,ew of the provisions of the Act quoted abov€, th€ authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliance ol obligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer ifpLrrsued by the complai'ant at a later stage.

14.

Further, the authorityhas no hitch i! proceeding with thecomplaint and to grant a relief of refund inthe present matter in vi€w of the )udgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in iv€wteci Promo'erc ond Developers Pnva@ Ltmiteal vs stdte of U,P. aril ots.

2021'2022 (1) RcR (clvtl)' 357 and rciteroted in cose of M/s SaI,o Realtors Privob Limlted & other Vs Union oJ lndia & others SLP (Ctvtt) No, 13005 oJ 2020 decided on 12.05.2022 vrh,ercinithas been Iaid down as under: "86 Frcn the vhene al rhe Act ol which o detaikt) rckrenu has been mode ohd toking note ol pow* al odiudi@tion detineated sith the reg ulotot, o u tho;iq and ad iud i@ring ofice L \| hot I no I lv cu ll s out a tho t aithough'the Ad i;di.otes the distinct dptessians hke lefu nd'inter*t **ti .na ''..pe,'u." o 'onPn Pattt'e al sat ont ta and la : ba, i nonle.t5 that wtter it. one, to t?lund olthp ohount. ond tn'PtP. t d ie relmd onDnt' ot directins polnent ol interest lot detared Page 11 ofla GURUGRAI\4 CoFplaintNo.5289of 2022 *HARERA (is-crnLrcrw t5 [..

ComplaintNo 5289 oi2022 .lelivery ofpossioh, ot Penolty and inbrest thereon, il is the regulatorv outhotiry which has the power to exohine ond det tnke the out a e ol o conplainL At the sdne tine, when it cones to a question ol eeking the rel kf ol o djudgi ng conpensdtion ond inte/est thereon u hdet Secti ons 1 2 14, 18 ond 19, the odiudkonng offcet exclurivelv has the powet tn detemine, keeping in vieq the @llective reoding of Section 71 rcod ||ith Sectian 72 olthe AcL if th. odjudtcdtion under S. n under S.ctions 12, 14, la ond 1e other than conpentution os envkoged, il extended to the odiudi@ting ollicer os Prcyed that, in oo view noy intend to upahd the onbi ohd vape olrhe powe6 ond functions ol the odiudtcatins oJtrcer under section 71 ohti that would be ogainst the mondoE ol the Act 2a16.' Hence. in view ol the authoritativ€ pronouncement ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases mentio.ed above, the authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint seekirg refund of the amount and interest on the refund amount.

Flndings on the reliet sought by the complalnant E.l Direct tlle resPondent to .etund the pald'up amount tlong_with The complainant was allotted a unit bearing no.

006, ground floor, in Tower's having carpet area of571105 sq. ft alotg with balcony with area of 98 sq. ft. in the project of respoldent named "Venetian" at Sector 70' Gu!ugram underthe Afiordrble HousinS Policy 2013 vide dllotmenl letter dated 09.03.2021.

Thereafter, butlder buyer agreement was not executed between the complainant and respondent in respect ofthe subject unit' As per clause 1(iv) ofthe policy of2013, all proiects under the said policv shall be requir€d to be necessarily completed within 4 years irom the date of approval of building plans or grant of environmental clearance wh ichever is later.

Thus, the possession ofthe uDit was to be offered within 4 years from the approval of building plans (07.02.2020) or from the date oi environment clearance (not obtained vetl Therefore, the due date of possession cannotbe ascertained.

As per record, the complainant has paid an amouDt of Rs.8,83,785l- to respond€nt.

Dueto failure on the part orthe Paqe 12 oilA HARERA Complaint No.

5289 of 2022 GURUGRAN/ respondent in obtaini.g environment clearance from the concerned authority and inordinate delay on part of the respondent to start construction of the proiect in question, the complainant has surrendered the un,t/flat vide letter dated14-0r-2022- 17. -2022- 17. tn cR/644a /2022 and cR/77A5 /2022,theb\!ver's asreement was executed inter-se parnes on 2 2.02 2 027 aad29.O6.2oz1 respectivelv Clause 5'2 talks about the possession ofthe unitto the complainants, the relevant portion is reproduce as under: "5.2 Possession nme the LonDow 'holt ea.pr?lv endew to comptek the .onstruct@n on'l oner h; p;sesrioa ol the Nkr wil wtthin tive veo^ lron the date oJ ;ie .eceivins ol ti.qs. (codnfttunr Perio<t")' but suble ro lor'e naieure .loise ol,hts Aswnt M.l unel! patment ol in ollm'ntt bv'th?

Attott@itl.

Eow?\e, ia @e the ConPonv 'onpte'q'tttP ''r ,u.ron ! o'tothep ,oa ol5 ttdrs the A ottee sho not ro6e ant obiedion in' tokiu th, Dos*ssion onar povment ol rPnoinina sote pri.? ond other ;horg;s stipulote.l in th?

Agr..nent to sPll' The Canpont on obtoining certilcote lor acclpation ond use b! the Cotupetent Auiod;ies shott hand ove. the eid unh 6 rhe Attottee lor hts/het/then arcupotion ond use, subject ra the Allottee having co plied \|ith oll the tetnomi conditians ofhe toid Poliq ohd Agreenent to Yll and palnehts node os per PoYneht Plan." 18.

The Authority observes that sinc€ the respondent/promoter has lunched the project under the Affordable group housing policy, 2013 which was introduce by the state Government on 19.08'2013' Clause 1[lV] of the Afiordable Croup Housing Policv, 2013 clearlv mennon that all such projects shall be required to be necessarilv completed within 4 veal/s lrom the approval ol buik ng plans or gront ol environmental cleararce whichev€r is later.The r€spondent /promoter is obligated to act unde' the provisions ol the said policy, 2013 onlv' Therefore, the said possession clause 5.2 of the buyer's agre€ment is hereby seGaside by the Authority and the due date ol possession shau be calculated as per clause 1(lv) of the Affordable Group Hous,ng Policy, 2013.

In the above mentioned cases the :: HARERA GURUGRA[/ Complaint No. plaint No.

5289 of 2022 respondent is lailed to obtaining environment clearance from the concerned authority and inordinate delay on part ofthe respondent to start construction ofthe project in question, the complainant has surrendered the unit/flat.

19- As per the clause 5 (iii)(hl of the Afiordable Housing Poticv, 2013 as amended by the State Government on 05.07.2019, the relevant provision resarding surrender of the allotted unit by the allottee has been laid down and thesame is reproducedas undeD.

Clause 5(iii) (h) ofthe Affordable Housing Policv,2013 A wotinshnfor u noinun of 25% ol the tototovotabk nu ber olllat\ .nilable fot attainena na! otsa be p.ePo.ed du tsthtdta||oflattNho Lon h. olktcd the ottatncnt n coe 'oneofthe suc.esfutdhikcs are )t LL)lc to renore Lhe detclenci5 n thei applicotion wthin the p.e\db.d N o.! oJ 1s days [AnsurrcnderoJ]1otblanvsueesslul ollohe' th nant thot cdn be larleited br the.olonizer ih odairrcn ns 2saaa/ \hott nat An'ount tu bc rorler(J Gdl ln caso olsurrend.rolnat bcrore com m.n.emeni o t l]rolect l (bbl trpto 1 year tuom lhe date of .omoencemenl orihe Projeci 1%ofrhecostofaat ] G,] l,pto 2 year fiom rhe datc or .onmencemeit oi the proied [dd] After 2 years from the date ol .onnnencenent of the prolect i, n nou ru i. .oosta","a tt oe conntke lor ollet to thov opphtanr lott,na n i; watuno hst Hawew. non-enovat aldehtEftP: bt on. \unstul aobh.o \halt not he Lonsidered ot suftend ol llot. ond 40 :uch o.,t',;on ;i R.

2 5-ooo shot t be dorth o bte on tu.h' o\et 1 | an! wo tt t i't"d cotulido| ;oes rct wart to continue in the woiting list he o! seek withdrdeol ond the li@nee sholl refund rhe boaking onount within 3a doys, ||ithout inposins anJ pqolry. lhe \|oiting list sholl be nointoined lot o oet Dd ot 2 ve;\, otter whr h oe bookt4s o1oud \hall be rclunded ba'\ 'i n" ioii,'ea ;pptnonu- wtthout an! irtPtAL Att nonad\ce$tut appliconts shdll be refuhded bock the booking anount wthin 15 dals ol holding the . ding the .lrow of lots " --: HARERA GURUGRAl\/ €omplaint No.

5299 of 2022 ln the present matter, th€ subject unitwas surrendered bythecomplainant- allotree vide le$er dated 14.012022 due to fa,lure on the part oi the respondent i. obtaining enuronment ctearance and has requested the respondent to cancel the allotment and refund the entire amount paid bv him along with ,nterest 21.

However. it has come to the notice ofthe authorty that the respondent has failed to obta,n environmental clearance from the competent authority till .lat€.

It is pertinent to mention here that as per the clause 5 [iii)(b) o'the Affordable Housing Policy, 2013 as imended by the State Covernment on 22.07.2015 provides that if the licenseefails to get environmental clearance even on€ year ofholding draw, the [cence? ls liable to refund the amount deposited by the applicant along with an interest of 12016, if th€ allottee so desires.The relevantprovision is reProduced b€low for readv referencer "fhe llots i^ a spec$c prciect shott be atlotbd in on' go withtn Jour nontht al h" 'i,ctio, X iuitini ptins. tn cdE, th. nunber oJ oppticotions received k tess tnon the nu bq olsdhctiored fots,theollotn'nt@n b' nod "tli'. uo**u. i" tt"rac"" ,itt siorr the @nsrrtction ontt ofte' 'ecopt al '.nvnonnentol cl.arance Iron i'e conpet'nt duthotitt' lri. ticen@e eitt storr'ftcatvinl ie lulher inst'tn'n" onu on'e the ;nvtunnentat cteomnce ts rec.tteil.

Funhe, it the licencee loit to set "ri-"^-t"t "r""-*" *"n dft.r one vdr ol hotdinq oJ dro*' the iieenee is tioble b tufund he amotut dep$tted bv fie opptieont otonowlth oa intqest ol lztvq t the o otteP sod'slrcs zz. r" rrrls iieara. rr'e autho;rtv observes thdr rs per clause 5rirrl(bl or rhe Afiordable Housing Policy, 2013, ihe licencee will start receiving the further installments only once the environmental clearance is rece'ved' As delineated hereinabove, the respondent has failed to obtain environmental clearaDce till date, thus, are not entitled to receive an receive any further payments' Hence, the objection rais€d bvthe respondentis devoid ofmerits' 23.

Further, as per amendment dated 09.07.2018 in Affordable Group Hosing Policy, 2013, the rate of inter€st in case oideiault shall be as P€r rule 15 of A8E!A URUGRAN/ H G th ComplaintNo.

5289 of 2022 Real Estate [Resulation and Development) Rules, 2017' Rule 15 ofthe rules is reproduced as under: Rute15 Prcscribed rate of i ntercst- IP ravisa to secrion 12 sert]on 18 ond sub section 4) ahd subsectioh (7) olse.tian 1el Fo. the purPase oI ptoviso t section 12: sectton 1A:ond sub'ectons (1) ond (7) al section 19,the"interestatthe.ate prescribed \hdttbe Lhe Stote Bonkoflhdio high*tnorginol cotrollending rcte +2% Pravidea that in cae the Stote sonkoflnt a narginal con'llending rote (MClR) is not in ue, x shotl be reploced bt such benchhotk lendihg rotes which the Stote Bankolthdia movJi\ tan tihe ta tlne lot lendtng ro thc seheral PubLc 24.

The l4islature in its wisdom in the subordinate legislation uDder the rule 15 of the rules has determiDed the prescribed rate olinterest' The r:rte of interest so determined bvthe legislature' is reasonable and iithe said rule is followed to award the interest, it will ensure unilorm practice in all the 25 lhus, the complainancallottee is entitled io refund of the entire amoLrnt deposited alo.g with interest at the prescribed rate as per aforesaid provisions laid down underAffordable Housing Policv, 2013' 26.

Hence, the respondent/promoter is directed to reiund the entire pa'd_up amount as per clause 5(iii)tbl ofthe ofAffordable Housins Policv' 2013 as amended by the State Governoent on 22.07'2015, along with prescribed rate ol i nterest i.e., @ 11.10% p.a. [th€ State Bank of lndia high est margin a I cost oflending rate (MCLR) applicable as on date +2%) as prescribed under rule 15 oithe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules' 2017 from the date ofeach payment t,ll the actual realization ofthe amount within the timel,nes pro el,nes provided in rule 16 ofthe Haryana Rules 2017 ibid' E.ll To conduct an inquiry lnto fraudulent acts of the resPondert and caocelthe RERA registration for th€ proiect in question' F.llt To imDose a Denaitv amounting to 5% ol the project cosl under s..tion 60 otthe Act on.ccount ol vlolation ofsection 4 0tlhe ArL HARERA GURUGRAIV conplaintNo.52S9of 2022 With respectto theaforesaid reliefs, theauthority has already initiated suo_ moto proceedings bearing no CR/ 1104/202 3 against the respoDdent Thus, the aforesaid r€liefs are not being deliberated bv th€ authorilv in the present complaint and shallbe dealt separately by the author,ty.

E.lv Directthe resPondent to Pay Rs.1,25,000/_ forlegal.ost.

28 The complainant is also seeking relief w.r't. compensatron.

Ho n'ble Suprem e Courtof lndia in civil appeal oos 6745'67 +9 ol 2027 ti\led as M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers PvL Ltct. vs.

Stdte of ItP & Ors Isu p ra) has held that an allottee is entitledto claim compensation &litigation charges under sections 12,14,18 and sect,on 19 which is to bedecided bv the adludic'rhng officer as per section 7t and the quantum of compensation & litiganon expense shallbe adjudged by the adjudicating oincer having due regard to the factors mentioned in section 72 The adjudicating ofilccr has exclusive rurisdiction to deal with the complaints in respect ofcompensation & legal F.

Directions oftbe authorlty 29.

Hence, the auihority hereby passes this order and issue the follos'n8 drreciions under sectron 37 ofrhe Act to ensure complj:nce of obhgations .asted upon the promoter as per the functions entrusted to the authoritlr under section 34[0 ofthe Act: i.

The respondent is directed to refund the entlre paid_up amount as per clause S(,ii)tb) of the Affordable Housing Policv' 2013 as amended bv the State Covernmert on 22.07-2015, along with prescribed rate of interest i.e., @11.10rlo p.a.

10rlo p.a. as prescribed under rule 15 of the Rules' 2017 from the date of each payment till the actual realization of the HARERA GURUGRAI\,4 A period of 90 days is gNen to the respondent directions given in this order failing which legal first utilized for clearing /complainantGl.

30.

This decision shall mutatis m to cases mentioned iD Para 3 of this order wherein deta,ls unt is mentioned in each of the to comply with the consequences would iii.

The respondent is further directed not to create a'y third_party rights against the subiect un,t before the fult realization of paid-up amount along w'th interest lhereon to the complainant[s), and even if, any transfer is initiated with respectto subject uni! the rec€ivable shallbe 31.

32. (Ashok Me H Haryana Real E Dared:03.09.2024 iay Kuzmarcoyal, , Curugram (vl conpla int No.

5289 of2022