MR PANKAJ GOYAL vs BPTP LTD.

* HARERA H*" eunuonnrvr BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGMM Complaint No.714 of 2024 Complaint no.l Date of decisioni- 714 of 2024 o4.12.2O24 Mr.

Pankai Goyal R/o:-B-3 3A, Yadav Nagar, SamayPur, New Delhi-110042.

1.

M/s.

BPTP Ltd Regd, office:M-11, Mi Connaught Circle, N 2.

Countrywi Regd.

Office: 28, EC K.G.

Marg, New Delhi- Complainant Respondent no.1 Respondent no.2 CORAM: Shri Ashok Sangwan APPEAMNCE: MARERA Member GURUGRAM Ms.

Priyanka Agarwal (AdvocateJ Mr.

Harshit Batra (Advocatel Complainant Respondents ORDER 1.The present complaint dated 29.02.2024 has been filed by the complainant/allottee under section 3l' ofthe Real Estate (Regulation and v ters Pvt.

Ltd r, 1{ Floor, 1. -110001.

Page 1 of 23 ffiHAREIA *-ru* eunuonn[l Complaint No.7:1"4 of 2024 Development) Act, ?;01-.6 (in short, the Actl read with rule 28 of the the Rules) for violation of section 11(4)(a) of the Act wherein it is inrer alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations' responsibilities and functions as provided under the provision of the Act or the Rules and regulations made there under or to the allottees as per the agreement for salc executed infer se' A.

Unit and Prorect related details 2.

The particulars of the proiect, the details of sale consideration' the amount paid by the complainants, date of proposed handing over the possession ancl delay period, if any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: Sr.

No.

Particulars ,"*- 1 Name ofthe project "Park-Serene-Spacio"- Sector-37-D, Gurugram.

Group housing colonY 23.814 acres 2 Nature of the proiect 3 Area ofthe proiect 4 Hrera Registered Registered Vide no.

300 of 20L7 dated- t3.t0.2077.

83 of 2008 28.10.20L0 (As on page no.

25 of comPlaint) 5 DTCP Licence Allotment letter (lssued to original alltteesJ 6 Haryana Real Estate [Regulation and Development) Rules,2017 (in shorl Page 2 of 23 a/ M HARERA #-eunuennt'r Complaint No. plaint No.714 of 2024 7 Date of execution BBA (Between original allottee and respondentl 04,02.207L (As on page no.

30 of comPlaintl 8 Unit no.

K-1401, Floor-1"t, Tower-K [As on page no.

33 of comPlaintJ 9 Super area LZZS sq.ft .

ISuper-Area] (As on page no.33 of comPlaint) 1.0 Possession clause HAF gUNU /.: 6 CLAUSE 3.

POSSESSION 1.1 The Seller/Confirming Parq) proposes to hand over the possesslon of the FIat to the Purchoser(s) within a period of 36 months from the date of booking/registration of the Flat' 'l'he Purchaser(s) agrees and understands thot Yttet / LUttJtt tttttta t ut L)' be entitled to a grace d of 180 [One hundred Eiohtv dovsl after the a e a o t IEmphr ', (As on , nd 36 months, and obtaining 'on certificote for the in espect of the Colony from he Authoriy. tsis suppliedl page no.

41 of complaint) 11 Grace period 180 days t2 Due date of possession 28.04.2014 [Calculated 36 months from the date of allotment + 180 daYs grace Page 3 of23 ffiHARERA #" arnuennr',1 Complaint No.714 of 2024 periodl L3 Nomination letter in favour of complainant 31.01.2013 [As on page no.

127 of reply) 1_4 Basic Sale consideration as per statement of account Rs.31,02,311/- (As on page no.

143 of reply) 15 Total amount paid the complainant by Rs.SL,72,502/- page no.

89 of complaintJ 16 Offer of possession 1,7 0ccupation certificate 30.07.2020 no.

138 ofreplyl 18 Conveyancr: deed L. t.2 )22 no.

165 of reply) B.

Facts ofthe 3.

The complainant has made the following submissions in the complaint: LUrrrPrdrrrL.

I.

That the respondent no.

1 i.e., M/s.

BPTP Limited and respondent no.2 i.e.

Countrpvide Promoters Private Limited both are companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having their corporate office at #28, ECE House, First Floor K.G Marg, New Delhi - 110001. lt is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.1 is the Developer/Builder and respondent no 2 is a collaborator and attorney holder on behalf of the n Page 4 of23 lo1.o8.

23 lo1.o8.202o | (As on page no, 141 of rePlYl ffiHARER1 SH. eunuennvt ll.

Complaint No.714 of 2024 Iicensees/landowners.

Therefore, both respondents have joint as well as several liabilities towards the complainant.

The project in question is knolvn "spacio Park -Serene" situated in Sector - 37D, Gurugram, Haryana.

That the respondent launched a residential project "SPACIo" situated at Sector-37D, Gurugram, and promoted it extensively through advertiscments.

The complainant was allured by an enamored advertisement of the respondent and believing the plain words of respondent in utter good faith, the complainant booked a unit in the aforesaid proiect ofthe complainant That the original allottees, i e., Mrs.

Shilpi Goel & Mr. |itender Goel booked a 3BHK residential apartment in the proiect by paying the booking amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and were allotted a unit bearing no.

K-140 situated on 14th Floor, in Tower-K admeasuring 1225 sq' ft. vide allotment letter dated 28.10.2010.

That a Flat Buyers' Agreement was executed between the ori8inal allottees and the respondent on 04.02.2011.

As per Clause 3 1, the respondents undertook to handover possession of the unit within 36 months from the date of booking, which comes out to be 07.07.2013.

The total sale consideration of the unit was Rs.39 ,77 ,200 l- That the complainant executed an agreement to sell dated 12.0L.2013 u'ith thc original allottees in respect ofthe subject unit and henceforth stepped into their shoes and became the allottee of the said unit.

I'hereafter, the allotment of the unit was transferred in the name of the complainant by the respondents and nomination Ietter datecl 3 t.01.2013 was issued in favour of the complainant' I II, IV, Page 5 ot23 Complaint No.714 of 2024 GURUGRANI vt.

The original allottees had paid a sum of RS.ZZ,44,1ZB /- to the respondents, and the same was transferred in the name of the complainant by way of Nomination Letter dated 31.0L.2073.

1.0L.2073.

That the complainant was in utter shock and disbelief to see that the respondents had sent an offer of possession letter dated 01.08.2020, with added illegal charges and not even mentioning anything about the delayed possession charges.

The complainant decided to visit the project site himself and was in utmost shock and disbelief to see that the internal works of the unit were absolutely incomplete, rendering it inhabitable.

Even the work that had been completed were not as per the sanctioned plans VIl.

That the respondents had also increased the super area of the unit from 1225 sq. ft. to 13 03 sq. ft. and offered the carpet area of only 772 sq. ft., which is absolutely illegal and arbitrary.

The complainant immediately raised his concern with the respondents, however, they again kept on making vague excuses and assured the complainant that the unit shall be finished at the earliest and kept on raising illegal demands.

That the complainant obiected to the illegal demands to which the respondents threatened to cancel the allotment of the complainant ifhe did not succumb to the demands, Vlll.

Thus, afraid of losing the allotment of the unit, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.51,72,502.57/- tiu date even though the total consideration of the unit was Rs.39,17,200/-.

The respondents offered the possession of the unit after a delay of more than 7 years and then only adjusted an amount of Rs.4'55,247 /- as compensation, which is absolutely illegal, unjust and arbitrary.

HARER/1 Page 6 of 23 HARERA Complaint No.714 of 2024 MGURUGRAN/ IX.

Thereafter, the respondent issued a No Obiection Certificate dated 03.11.2022 in favour of the complainant, giving possession of the unfinished and inhabitable unit only for the purpose of fit outs' That on 04.11.2022, Conveyance deed was executed between the parties and the respondents had assured that the unit shall be completed at the earliest and the complainant would be able to occupy the sanre before the upcoming festive g festive season X.

That the respondent illegally appointed the maintenance agency without providing any prior intimation to the complainant or any notice of Annual General' Meeting for the appointment of maintenance agertcy, and has been charging maintenance charges since then. xl.

That the respondent had illegally increased the super area of the allotted unit in the offer of possession letter without any justification, adding additional burden on the complainant while the carpet area remains the same.

XIL That complainant visited the respondent's office multiple times and sent several emails, but to no avail.

That the complainant tried to approach the respondent to know the reasons for inordinate delay but thc respondents kept on making vague excuses on one pretext or the other.

XIII.

That the malafide intentions and dishonest conducts of the responclents are cvident from the very fact that they have become infamous for their modus operandi of alluring thousands of innocent people into their trap by way of false advertising and assurances and then extracting huge amounts of monies frollr Page 7 of 23 * HARERA #*eunuonnll Complaint No.714 of 2024 them, then leaving them with a mere "FIT-OUTS PO.SSESSION IET?ERS" which has absolutely no significance under law.

C.

Relief sought by the complainant: 4.

The complainant has sought following relief(s): i.

Direct the respondent to finish all the works in the unit and handover the actual physical possession of the unit ii.

Direct the respondents to pay delayed possession charges along with interest from the due date of possession till the actual final handover of possession. iii.

Direct the respondents to refund the amount paid by the complainant as delayed payment interest, illegally charged by the respondents along with interest. .

Reply by respondent: The respondents have filed a joint written reply and made the following submissions: That respondent no. ondent no.

2 be deleted from the array of parties as it is merely a confirming party to the Agreement- Moreover, no reliefs are sought by the complainants against respondent no 2 Hence, respondent no.

2 shall be deleted from the array of parties That the original allottees, namely, Ms Shilpi Goel and Mr. litender Goel being interested in the group housing project of the respondent known as "spacio - Park Serene" applied for purchasing a unit in the abovestated proiect of the respondent and were allotted a tentative unit bearing no.

K-1401 on 14th Floor in Tower K admeasuring tentative super area of 12 25 sq. ft.

Page I of 23 D.

5. w6 II I.

Complaint No.714 of 2024 IV.

VI.

HARERA GURUGRANI That thereaftet a Builder Buyer Agreement dated 04.02.2011 was executed between the original allottees and the respondents.

It is imperative to mention here that the complainant, after being fully satisfied and agreed with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, voluntarily and wilfully entered into the same.

That after execution of the Agreement dated 04.02.2011, the original allottees'also executed an "Undertaking and Affidavit" duly agreeing to the tcntative nature of the unit. ,4fter the execution of the Agreement dated 04.02.201"1, the original allottees along with the complainant approached respondent no.

1 and requested him to transfer the unit in favour of the complainant That acting in fimost bonafide, respondent no.

1 transferred the unit in favour of the complainantvide Nomination Letter dated 31.01.2013.

That as per Clause 3.1 of the Agreement, the due date of offer of possession of the unit was 36 months from the date of booking/registration oF the unit along with a grace period of 180 days subject to the various force maieure circumstances and timely remittance of outstanding dues by the complainant That the construction of the unit was hampered due to and was subiect to the happening of the force ma,eure circumstances and other circumstances beyond the control of ontrol of the respondent, the benefit of which is bound to be Siven to the respondents At this stage, it is categorical to note that the respondents faced certain force majeure events including but not Iimited to non-availability of raw material due to various orders of Hon'ble Puniab & Haryana High Court and National Green Tribunal thereby regulating the mining activities, brick kilns, regulation of the construction and Page 9 of 23 HARERA Complaint No.714 of 2024 ffi,GURUGRAM development activities by the iudicial authorities in NCR on account of the environmental conditions, restrictions on usage of water, etc.

It is pertinent to state that the National Green Tribunal in several cases related to Punjab and Haryana had stayed mining operations including in 0'A No.

L71'/2013, wherein vide Order dated 02.11.2015 mining activities by the newly allotted mining contracts by the state of Haryana was stayed on the Yamuna River bed.

These orders in fact inter-alia continued till the year 2018 Similar orders staying the mining operations were also passed by the Hon'ble High Court and the National Green Tribunal in Puniab and Uttar Pradesh as well.

The stopping of mining activity not only made procurement of material difficult but also raised the prices of sand/gravel exponentially.

It was almost 2 years that the scarcity as detailed aforesaid continued, despite which all efforts were made and materials were procured at 3-4 times the rate and the construction continued without shifting any extra burden to the customer.

The time taken by the respondent no.1 to develop the project is the usual time taken to develop a project of such a large scale and despite all the force maieure circumstances, the construction of the project has been completed diligently and timely, without imposing any cost implications of the aforementioned circumstances on the complainant' VII. nant' VII.

That the complainant was nominated on 3101 2013, ie, ten months before the expiry of the due date At that point in time, the complainant had seen the construction status of the project and acknowledged the delay in construction that was already effected by his date of l)omination.

Page 10 of23 ffi6 VIII. x.

Complaint No.714 of 2024 IX.

HARER.

GURUGRAIV Without prejudice to the aforementioned, it is submitted that the construction of the project was also subjected to timely payments of due instalments by the complainant and the erstwhile purchasers.

That the due date of offer of possession was also dependent on the timely payment by the complainant and the erstwhile purchasers, which, the complainant and the erstwhile purchasers failed to do.

That despite innumerable hardships being faced by the respondent no.

1, the respondent no.1 completed the construction of the project and applied for the Occupation Certificate before the competent authorily on 21.01.2020 and successfully attained the Occupation Ceriificate on 30.07.2020.

That the respondent no.1 legally offered the possession of the unit to the complainant on 01.08.2020.

It is pertinent to mention that along with the Offer of possession, the complainant was asked to make the requisite payments baseci on the Statement of Final Dues and complete the documentation required to enable the respondent no.1 to initiate the process of handover of unit and registration of sale deed The respondent no.

1 while offering the possession of the unit to the complainant lrad also credited an amount of l\s.4,55,247 l- ott account of Loyalty Bonus which is in form of delayed compensation interest.

That after offering possession to the complainant, the physical possession for fit outs was also handed over to him vide NOC for fit outs dated 03.71.2022.

That the Conveyance Deed was executed between the complainant and the respondent on 04 11.2022.

4 11.2022.'Ihat after execution of the Conveyance Deed, the contractual Page 11of23 HARERA Complaint No.714 of 2024 gR GURUGRAI4 relationship between the parties stands fully satisfied and comes to an end, XI.

That after execution of the Conveyance Deed, the complainant rented out the unit to Mr.

Karan Nagpal and Mr Mnkul Tripathi on 0L.03.2023.

That since then, the unit is being enjoyed by the complainant.

That however, with the intent to mislead the Authority, the complainant has wrongfully sought physical possessi on, 6.

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

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

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

E.

Jurisdiction ofthe authoritY: 7.

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

Territorial iurisdiction 8.

As per notification no. ll92/2017-7TCP dated 14.1'2.20L7 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with offices situated in Gurugram. [n the present case, the proiect in question is situated within the planning area of Gurugram district.

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

I Page 12 of 23 mIARERA S-euRuenRnl Complaint No.714 of 2024 E.

II Subiect matter iurisdiction 9.

Section 11(4)(aJ of the Act,20L6 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

Section 11(4)[a) is reproduced as hereunder: Section 11(4)(o) Be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the ptovisions of this Act or the rules qnd regulations made thereunder or to the allottee os per the agreementfor sale, or to the association ofallottee, as the case may be, till the conveyonce of all the opar l the opartments, plots or buildings, os the cose may be, to the allottee, or the common areas to the association of qllottee or the competent authority, qs the case may be; 10, 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 leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adiudicating officer if pursued by the complainant at a later stage.

F.

Findings on the obiections raised by the respondent: F.t.

Obiection regarding wrongful impleadment of respondent no.2 in the array of parties.

11.

The respondents have raised an obiection of wrongful impleadment of respondent no.2 i.e., M/s.

Countrywide Promoters Pvt.

Ltd. in the array oF parties. 'lhe respondent no.1 stated that respondent no.

2 is only a confirming party in the Agreement and no specific relief has been sought by the complainant from respondent no.2.

12.

As per record available the respondent no.2 is a Confirming party to the Agreement dated 04.02,2011 and was granted licence by the Page 13 of 23 ffi HARERA ffieur<uennu [iv) xxx 14.

As per aforesaid provisions of law, Complaint No.714 of 2024 Director, Town and Country Plannin& Haryana vide licence no' 83 of 2008 and 94 of Z}lL.

The respondent no.

2 cannot escape its responsibility and obligations to the allottees of the project being licensee of the project and is covered under the definition of promoter within the meaning of 2(zkJ(i),(v).

13.

Promoter has been defined in section 2[zkJ of the Act.

The relevant portion ofthis section re "2.

Definitions. - unless the context othelwise requires - (zk) "promoter" n1 (ii) a person er or not the person also the plots, for the of the plots in the purpose of sel said project, whe there; or (ili) xxx 0 no. xxx 0 no.1 & 2 will be Whereas, the primary responsibility to discharge the responsibilities of promoter lies with respective promoter in whose allocated share the apartments have been bought by the buyers. ln view of the same, the contention/objection of respondent no.1 stands rejected.

F.lI.

Obiections regarding force maieure circumstances due to which the construction got delayed.

Page 14 ol23 15.

The respondent no.1 has raised the contention that the construction of the project, has been delayed due to force maieure circumstances such as orders passed by National Green Tribunal to stop construction and development activities, restrictions on usage of water.

The plea of the respondent regarding various orders of the NGT and all the pleas advanced in this regard are devoid of merit.

The orders passed by NGT banning construction in the NCR region was for a very short period of time and thus, cannot be said to impact the respondent no.1 Ieading to such a delay in the completion.

The due date of offer of possession of the unit is 28.04,2014. tr HARERA ffi,eunuennl,r 16.

Thus, the respondent no.1 aforesaid reasons and it cannot take benefit of his grace period of 1.80 days Complaint No.714 of 2024 cannot be given any leniency based on is well settled principle that a person own wrong.

Moreover, the unqualified has already been allowed and thus no further relief in regard to this is required to be granted to the respondent no.1.

F.lll.

Whether the complainant can claim delayed possession charges after execution ofthe conveyance deed .

17. 'Ihe respondent no.1 stated that the conveyance deed of the unit has already been executed in favour of the complainant on 01.Ll.2022 and the transaction between the parties stands concluded upon the execution of conveyance deed.

18.

The respondent no.1 has argued that upon the execution of the conveyance deed, the relationship between the parties is considered concluded, precluding any further claims or liabilities by either . y either .v/ Page 15 of23 ffiHAREj1A #- eunuenRvr party.

Consequently, the complainant is barred from asserting any interest in light ofthe circumstances ofthe case.

19.

In order to comprehend the relationship between the allottee and the promoter, it is essential to understand the definition of a "deed." A deed is a formal, written document that is executed, signed, and delivered by all parties involved in the contract, namely ttre buyer and the seller.

It is a legally binding document that incorporates terms enforceable by law.

Fq:.l.,tlu deed to be valid, it must be written and signed by bot\. pfitieq, Essentially, a conveyance deed involves the seller transferring all rights to legally own, retain, and enjoy a particular asset, whether immovable or movable.

In the present case, the asset in question is immovable property.

By signing a conveyance deed, the original owner transfers all legal rights pertaining to the property to the buyer in exchange for valid consideration, typically monetary.

Thus, a "conveyance deed" or "sale decd" signifies that the seller formally transfers all authority and ownership of the property to the buyer.

20.

That the execution of a conveyance deed transfers only the title and interest in the specified immovable property (in this case, the allotted unit). llowever, the conveyance deed does not terminate the relationship between the parties or absolve the promoter of their obligations and Iiabilities concerning the unit, despite the transfer of title and interest to the allottee upon execution of the conveyance deed.

21.

The Authority has already taken a view in Cr.

4O3t/2019 others titled as Varun Gupta V/s Emaar MGF Land limited Page 1,6 of 23 Complaint No.714 of 2024 and and HARERA P*GURUGRAN/ others and observed that the execution of a conveyance deed does not conclude the relationship or marks an end to the liabilities and obligations of the promoter towards the subject unit and upon taking possession, and/or executing conveya ng conveyance deed, the complaint never gave up his statutory right to seek delayed possession charges as per the provisions of the said Act.

22.

Upon reviewing all relevant facts and circumstances, the Authority determines that the complainant/allottee retain the right to seek compensation for delays in possession from the respondent- promoter, despite the execution of the conveyance deed.

G.

Findings on the relief sought by the complainant.

G.l Direct the the respondent the respondents to finish all the works in the unit and handover the actual physical possession of the unit.

G.ll Direct the respondents to pay delayed possession charges along with interest from the due date of possession till the actual final handover of possession.

23.

The aforementioned reliefs are interrelated and thus are being addressed together.

In the present complaint, the original allottees i.e., Mrs.

Shilpi Goel and Mr.

Jitender Goel booked a unit with the respondent no.i[ and acquired unit numbered K-1401 on 1st floor of Tower-K, measuring 1225 sq. ft. for a basic sale consideration of Rs.31,02,311/- in the project "Spacio" being developed by respondent no.1.

Thc unit was allotted to the original allottees via an allotment letter dated 28.1,0.2010, followed by the execution of a FIat Buyer's Agreement betlveen the original allottees and the respondent no.1 and respondent no.z on 04.02.2011, The original allottees and tl.)o complainant entered into an agreement to sell and 4/- Page 77 of 23 Compiaint No.714 of 2024 Complaint No,7l"4 of 2024 25.

HARERA ffi"GURUGRAM thereafter, the unit was endorsed in the name of the complainant via nomination letter dated 31.01.2013.

According to clause 3.1 of the aforementioned agreement, the respondent committed to handing over possession of the unit to the complainants by 28.04.2014.

8.04.2014.

The said clause is reproduced below: " Clause 3,7 "Possession" The Seller/Confrrming Party proposes to handover the possession ofthe Flot to the Purchaser(s) within d period of 36 months from the date of booking/registration of the Flat, The Purchaser(s) agrees ond understands thot the Seller/Conlirming Pdrty sholl be entitled to a grace period of 180(One hundred and Dlghty dctys) after the expiry of 36 months, for applying ancl obtoining the occupation certificate in respect ofthe Colony from the Authority.

LEtnph0sis suppliedl Therefore, the due date for the delivery of possession to the complainants was 28.04.2014.

However, respondent no.1 received the occupation certificate for Tower-K from the competent authorities on 30.07.2020 and subsequently extended an offer of possession to the complainant on 01.08.2020.

The complainant has paid a total of I\s.51,72,502/- towards the basic sale consideration of Rs.31,,02,31,1l-, as evident from the Statement of Accounts annexed on page no.89 ofthe complaint.

The complainant submitted that the respondents made an offer of possession to him on 01.08.2020 and adjusted an amount of Rs.4,55,247 l- as compensation which is absolutely unjust.

Thereafter, the respondent no.1 issued a No Objection Certificate on 03.11.2022 giving possession of the unfinished unit to the complainant.

The conveyance deed has also been executed on 07.71.2022.

Page 18 of 23 HARERA Complaint No.714 of 2024 GURUGRAI/ In the present complaint, the complainant intends to continue with the project and is seeking delay possession charges along with interest on the amount paid.

Proviso to section 18 provides that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the proiect, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of possession, at such rate as may be prescribed and it has been prescribed under rule 1 5 of the rules. "Section 7B: - Return of amount qnd compensation 1B(1). ion 1B(1). lf the promoter fails to complete ot is unable to gtve possession oJ an apartment, plot, or building, - ir"ria"a ,n* wherc an allottee does not intencl Lo withdrdw from the prqect, he sholl be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the honding over of the possession, qt such rate as mqy be presc bed.

27.

Admissibility of delay possession charges at prescribed rate of interest: Proviso to section 1.8 provides 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 handing over of possession, at such rate as may be prescribed and it has been prescribed under rule 15 ofthe rules.

Rule 15 has been reproduced as under: "Rule 15, Prescribed rate of interest- [Proviso to section 12, section 78 qnd sub-section (4) and subsection (7) afsection 791 For the purpose ofproviso to section 12; section 18; and sub' (1) sections (4) ond (7) of section 19, the "lnterest at the rate prescribed" sholl be the State Bonk of lndiq highest marginal cost of lending rate +20k.: Provided thot in case the State Bank of lndia morginol cost of lending rate (MCLR) is not in use, it shqll be replaced by such benchmork lending rates which the State Bank of lndio may Jix from time to time Jbr lending to the general public." 28.

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 v Page 19 of 23 Complaint No.714 of 2024 29.

30.

31.

HARERA *@...GURUGRAI/ reasonable and if the said rule is followed to award the interest, it will ensure uniform practice in all the cases.

Consequei'rtly, as per website of the State Bank of India i.e., https:/lsbieo-ll, the marginal cost of lending rate (in short, MCLR) as on date i.e,, 04.12.2024 is 9.10 %. is 9.10 %.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate ofinterest will be marginal cost oflending rate +20% i.e., 11.100/0.

The definition of term 'interest' as defined under section 2(za) of the Act provides that the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case of default.

The relevant section is reproduced below: "(za) "interest" meons the rates of interest payqble by the prcmoter or the allotLee, 0s the case may be.

Explanation. -For the purpose ofthis clause- (i) the rate of interest chargeoble from the qllottee by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottee, in case ofdefoult. (ii) the interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be from the date the promoter received the omount or ony pqrt thereof till the clate the amount or part thereof and interest thereon is reJinded, ancl Lhe interest payable by the allottee to the promoter sholl be from the dqte the allottee defaults in payment to the promoter till the date it is paid;" On consideration of the documents available on record and submissions nrade regarding contravention of provisions of the Act, the Authority is of the view that even though the respondent no.2 was a confirming party to the agreement but respondent no.1 was primarily responsible for construction and completion of the unit of the complainant and all the transactions took place between respondent no.1 and the complainant right from the allotment ofthe unit till the offer of possession.

The respondent no.1 is in Page 20 of23 IIARERA Complaint No.714 of 2024 P*,GURUGRANI contravention of the section 11(4J(a) of the Act by failing to deliver possession by the agreed-upon date in terms of Clause 3.1 of the agreement dated 04.02.2011.

As per the agreed terms of the agreement, the respondent no.l. dent no.l. had to offer possession of the unit to the complainants by 28.04.2014.

Despite the complainant having paid more than 100% of the sale consideration, respondent no.1 failed to fulfill itsobligation and did not deliver possession of the unit on time.

The respondent no.1 made an offer of possession on 01.08.2020, after obtaining the occupation certificate from the relevant authorities on 30.07.2020.

The conveyance deed has been executed between the complainant and the respondent no.L on 01.LI.2022.

32.

Vide proceedings d,ared, 13.11.2024, the complainant counsel has submitted that the possession of the unit has been handed over to the complainant on 03.17.2022.

Thus, no direction w.r.t handing over possession are required.

33.

The non-compliance of the mandate contained in section 11[4)[a) read with proviso to section 1B(1) of the Act on the part of the respondent no.1 is established.

In the interest of iustice the Authority is of the view that the complainants, shall be paid, by the respondent no.1, interest for every month of delay from due date of possession i.e., 28.04.2074 till the offer of possession plus 2 months after obtaining the occupation certificate or actual handing over of possession, whichever is earlier, as per section 18(1) of the Act of 2016 read with rule 15 ofthe rules after deducting any amount paid Page 2l of 23 HARERA ffiOURUGRAM by respondent no.1 to the complainant on account of delay possession charges.

G.ltl.

Direct the respondents to refund the amount paid by the complainant as delayed payment interest, illegally charged by the respondents along with interest.

34.

The financial Iiabilities between the allottee and the promoter comcs to an end alter the execution of the conveyance deed.

The complainant could have asked for the claim before the conveyance deed got executed between the parties. e parties.

Therefore, after execution of the conveyance deed the complainant-allottee cannot seek refund of charges other than statutory benefits, if any pending.

Once the conveyance deed is executed and accounts have been settled, no claims remains.

So, no directions in this regard can be effectuated at this stage.

H.

Directions of the Authority 35.

Hence, the Authority hereby passes this order and issue the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations casted upon the promoters as per the functions entrusted to the authority under section 34[l): i.

The respondent no.1 is directed to pay interest for every month of delay from due date of possession i.e 28.04.2014 till the offer of possession plus two months after obtaining the occupation certificate from the competent authorities or actual handing over of possession, whichever is earlier, as per section 1B(1J of the Act of Pa$ez2 of23 Complaint No.714 of 2024 ffHARERA #.arnuennvr Complaint No.714 of 2024 2016 read with rule 15 ofthe rules after deducting any amount paid by respondent no.1 to the complainant on account of delay possession charges. ii.

The respondent no.1 shall not charge anything from the complainant which is not part of the agreement.

36.

Complaint stands disposed of.

37.

File be consigned to HARERA GIJRUGRAM Page 23 of ru ft;5;l'"fff-",' H arya na Rear Estate Resuratory fi :li;llll: M;1".