POONAM BHATIA vs ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.

* db HARERA GURUGRAI\/ BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Complarnt No.

5tcr or?023 order p.onounced onl 5391 of 2023 20.11.2024 N{rs Poonam Bhatia R/o: House no.-177, Sector 7, Curugram, Haryana.

Ve.sus 11/s Ansal Housing & Consiruction Ltd.

Regd. office: UCF 15, lndra prakash,2l Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

CORAM: ShriAshok Sangwan APPEARANCEI Sh.

Saydnr Diwan [Advocate] Sh.

Anrandeep Xadyan (Advocarel MembcI Complainant Respondent ORDER 1.

This complaint has been RIed by the comptainant/allonee under section 31 oathe Real Estate (Regulation and Developmentl Act, 2016 [in sho.t, the Act) read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Resulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (in sho.! the Rulesl for violation ot secrion 11(4)[a] of the Act wherein it is i,.er oll, p.escribed that rhe promorer shall be r.sponsible lor all obligations, responsibjUtjes and functions 2 *HARERA SeunLnnnttr Cohplarnt No.

539t ot20Zl Boulevard", _l under the provisions ofthe Act or the Rules and regulations made there under or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed irrerse.

Unlt and prolect deta s The particulars of unit, sale consideration, the amoLrnt paid by the complainants, date of proposed handing over rhe possession, detay period, ifany, have been detailed in the foltowing tabular form: Details Sector 83, 2.80 acres F Hub 83 Gurugram.

RERA resistered of 2010 I4fstered BB*q oe or2o1B dated PlSfihle,Shop [As on page no.

29 ofcomplaint] Date olexecution of builder 15.09.2010 DTCP license no.

8.

Not avaihble '1 *HARERA S- ounuennu ; 10.

Total sale consideration H Cannot be ascertaine.l Rs.65,24,a70 / . (As per s.o.A on complainr) page no.

21 of 12.

Refund requesr tl_- I liYy ,- l-orr;"rp".;; Rs.7,00,000/- LAs per S.O.A on page no.21of complaint) 28.A3_2A17 (As on page no.46 otcomplaurt) bv rle B 3 tact ofthe complaint The complainant has made the following submksions: - I That the .espondenr, M/s Ansat Housing & Construdion Ltd. udion Ltd. is a company duly formed underthe provisions ofrhe rndjan Companies Act, 1956.

That the respondent is dealing in reat esrate business of constructing co m mercjat projecrs. ll.

That the respondenr through jts aurhorized representarive and executives approached the complainanrs and intormed that rhey are workin8 as a real estate developer and own huge tand and alt requisite permissionsIs) and inctined to construct rhe project, a commercial complex namely ,,ANSAL HUB83 BOULEvARn CohplaintNo.539lof 202: & HARERA GURUGRA[/ curugram, situated in rhe revenue esrate ot Sedor_83, Tehsit & Disrrid Curgaon Manesar. ll1.

That the respondenr inforrned rhe complainants that the above mentioned p.oject is in pretaunch stage and Iured them to book a unit in rhe project.

That in good aaith and jnrerest upon, the complainants showed interest in rhe proposar and booked a commercial unit.

The total consideration of the unit w,s Rs.65,24,A7A/-.

The complainants paid Rs.7,00,000/- vid. cheque no.

044158 as booking amount in year 2013.

The cheques were duty lV.

The respondent colected Rs.200,000./- aga,.st the total sale consideration as per paymentptan.

The respondent has ril date has farled to execute any agreemenr to sel/purchase, despire receiving paymenrs from the complainants.

That rhe complainant after booking and.eatjzation of cheques qua pre-taunch booking approached the respondent severat times during rhe yeat 2012 2013 demanding for the payment.eceipts or any of rhe acknowledgemeot fo. the bookingmade fo.ground floor unit bythe complainant but respondenr never cared to respond to rhe conrplnjnant and not even cared to execure any agreement to sell/purchase till date o. signed any MOU.

V That the comptainanr was surprised to see rhar neither any construction started nor any demand lefter was issued by the respondent. espondent.

At the time oabooking, the comptainants were assured that the possession ot the unit rvoutd be detjvered on or before 42 months from the commencement of the p.olect bur rjll date rhe *HARERA $- ounuenlvr possession has no! be oifered.

VL That when the comptainant got ro know that the respondent have Do necessary licenses/permissjons and the construct,on work was kept at hold, he approached the respondent but rhe respondenr allured the comptainant by their false ctaims that alt n.cessary conditions and licenses haye beengranted ro them.

VIL That the complainanr visled the construchon and rhe oifice ot the respondenr severat times for rhe ctarjficatjon and sratus but got no response over rhe same.

Upon the unsatisiacrory response and the hostile behaviour of the respondent, the complainant reouested f.r cancellarion ofrhe bookin g ot 2A.O3.2017.

VI1l.

That the respondent assured the complainant that rhey will refund rhe booking amounr of Rs.7,00,000/_ many a rimes but failed to do rhe sa me.

Stating rhat ,we do nor have req uisite funds available $ ith us and presentty we have got many other old pending ctaims to satjsfy" lX Ihat even afrer the cance ation ofthe booking, rhe responde.r kept on raising demands, ro whjch rhe complainant has objected.

That the respondenr continued io raise demand norice from 2014 2020.

Rathe. rhan refunding the amouot paid by rhe complainanr, thc respondent is lelying healy interest on rhe comptainant by shoiving the arrea.s in the name ofthe complainant in its books.

X.

That it is perrinenr to mention rhat the project is resistered with the Authority bearing no.09 oi 2018 dated 08.01.2018 and due to such long delay in the conrmencement of rhe project and the completion olthe projec! rhe comptainant is in no need oithe unit in ouestion Eil",n-;r3r'"rro,. u LEt]A UGl?AIV A UR i] G ComplaintNo.

5391 of 2023 and the booking of rhe same was cancelled present complajnL C.

Rcllef sought by the cohptatnant: 4. atnant: 4.

The complainanthas sought following retief(sl: ,.

Direct rhe respondent to refund the paymenr alongwith interest.

D.

Reply flled bythe respondent long aso.

Hence. the made in lieu ol unir 5.

The respondenr has submitted the folowing by wayofwritten repty: l.

That the respondent is a developer and has built mutriple residential and commerciat buitdings wirhin Delhi/NCR with a well esrabtished reput,uion earned overyelrsof consistentcusromersahstaction.

11.

Tbat the complainants had approached rhe .espondent for booking a shop in its upcoming proj€cr,,Ansal Boulevard,,situated in Sector 83.

Curugram.

Upon the satisfaction of the complainant regarding i'rpecrion of the site, tirle, locarion ptahs, etc. a shop bearing unit no.

C 159 was atlorted to rhe complainant. lll.

That the cu..ent dispute cannot be govemed by the RERA Act, 2016 because olthe facr that the altotment was made in the year 2013.

Ir js submirted rhat rhe regularions at the concerned rime period would regulate rhe project and not a subsequenr tegislation i.e.

RERA A.r 2016.

Ir rs furthe. submi$ed rhar partiament woutd not make the rperJrion olJ \r ure rerrospe.t.vc rn efte.t. lV.

That even iftbrthe sake otargument, rhe averme.ts and the pleadiDgs in the compla,nr are taken ro be true, the said comptainr has been prefer.ed by the comptainant belatedly.

The comptainant has EHARERA S-6,1116141,4 F"""",". *r",zo,l .,dm r"dry lited rhp (omptdrnr rn the year Z02l dno ,n" -rr" o, ,.,,on accrues in 2017 as per the complaint ttself.

Therefore, ,t is submitted that the complaint cannor be Rled beio.e the Authoriry as rhe same is ba..ed by timitarion.

V.

Thar even if the complaint is admifted ro be t.ue and correc! rhen as per the ctause 24 ofthe BBA, the developer,s entitted to deduct 20% olthe basic sale price in case the buyer makes any defaults in payment ol instatments as per the payment plan. .l.hereiore, the complainant will be entitted to invoke the said clause and is barred trom app. trom app.oaching the Authorty in order ro alter the penalty clause by virtue ofthis complaint more than 10 years afte. ir was agreed upon by both parties.

V1 That the respondent iad in du. course oi me obrained all necessarv Jppro\cjs lrorn lhe con.erned aLrthor ies. lr i\ submirted lnar rhp approval to. digging foundatioo and L,asemenr was obtained and sanctions from the department ofmines and geology were obtained in 2012 Thus, rhe respondents have in a timely and pronpt manner ensured rhat the requisite compliances be obtained and cannot be laulred on givingdetayed possession to rhe complainant.

VII That the .espondent has adequately explatned rhe detay.

It is submited thar the detay has been occasioned on accounr of thj.os beyono the , ontr ot o, rhe respondent. tl rs turther \ubmrricd lhdr the Builder Buyer Agreement provides for such eventuatjties and rhe cause lordelay is comptetely covered in rhe said ctause.

Vlll That the .espondent have complied with rhe orders ot the Hon,btp High Court ofpunjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWp No.20032 ot *g!

HARERA GllR.lGl?Al\/ , ,",1,,,,1',lj'^,.

200a, dated 16.07.2072, 31.07.2072,21.0a.20t2.

The said orders baoned the extraction of water which is the backbone of the construction process.

Simitarly, the comptainr itsetf reveals that the correspondence from the respondenr speciffes force majeure and the orders of rhe Hon,bte NCT prohibiting construction in and around Delhi and the COVID -19 pandemic among others as the causes which contributed to rhe stalling of the pro,ect at cruc,al junctures for considerable spelts.

XI lx x That the respondent and the complainant admittedty have enrered rnto a builder buyer agreement which provides for the event nr delaysd possession.

It is submitted thar ctause 3t oi the buitder buyer agreement is clear rhat there is no compensarion to be sought by the conrplainant/prospective owner in the event ofdelay in possession. ossession. 'Ihat the comptainanr had signed and agreed on Bujlder Buyer Agreenrenr dated 25.77_20t4.

That perusat of the said ag.eement would show that ir is a Triparrite Agreemenr wherejn M/s Sanryak Projects Pvt.

Ltd is also a parry to the said agreement.

That the pe.usal of rhe Builder Buyer Agreemenr at page J would show thar M/s Samyak projects pvt.

Ltil not only possesses a| the rights and unfette.ed ownership of the said tand whereupon rhe prolect namely Ansai bouteva.d, Secror 83 is being developed, but also ,s a develope. jn the said projecr.

That the operating lines at page 3 of the 8uilde.

Buye.

Agreemenr are as followr .fte revelopet hos entercd into on agreement with the Conlirmtng parE 3 i.e M/s samyok Projects Pvt.

Ltd ta jointly pronote, develop and narket the propose.l proiect being developed on the tan.l asalaresaid.,. # ($ XII, HARERA GURUGRAIV ThatM/s Samyakproiect p\.t Ltd. in rerrns of its arrangement with the respondent could not develop the said projectwe wlthin time as was agreed and given to the respondent, the delay, ifan, is on the part of M/s Samyak Project pvr.

Lrd. not on rhe pan of respondenr, because the construction and devetopment ofthe said proiect was undertakeh by M/s Samyak project pvr.

Ltd.

XIll.

That in an arbit.al p.oceeding before the Ld.

Arbitrator lustjce A.K sikri, M/s Samyak project pvt. has raken over the present projed the .espond.nr for complerion of the project and rhe respondent has no locus or say in the presenrproject.

6 Copies oiall rhe relevanr documents have been filed and ptaced on the record.

The authenticity is not in dhpute.

Hence, rhe complaint can be decided on rhe basis ofthose undjspured documents as well as w.itten subnrlssions nrade by the complajnants. [. ]u sdiction ofthe aurhority il.

7.

1'hc Authorjry observes that jt has territorial as well as subiecr matter junsdiction to adjudicare the present complaint for the reasons given E. s given E.l Territoria I jurlsdiction As per notificarion no_ r/92/ZotT tTCp dated 14.12.2017 issued by TowD and Country planning Department, the lu.isdiction ot Reat Estare Regulato.y Authoriry, curugram sha be entire curug.am District tor a purpose with offices siruated in curugram.

In the present case, the proj.ct in question is siruated within the ptanning area of curue.am iore, this authority RERA UGMI\I t.

There ith the p A UR *H {P- G Dist Complaint No.

5391 of 2023 has complere terriror,al,urisdictjon to E.ll Subjectmanerjurtsdi.tioo 9 Sect,on 11[a][a) ot the Act, 2016 provides that the promoter shalt be .esponsible to rhe allottees as per agreement ior sale.

Section 11(al(a) 6 reproduced as hereunder: ii) tn" p,,..,,,,n.tr (a) be respansibte kr oI ibtrsotions, responsibitit$ ond Lhe Uov,s:o1! ol ht_ Att a- i" tLte, ona ta-u|o'.oh, 4ode thtrcuad?, o. b rne ahotte". o\ p4 t\e usreehent lar sale, or to the asso,totion o1ottuu"",, os'tn",u," ^o\ b. t.tt ,hp,.tp,oq" ol rr .,p aoor1_1,. ttot a.

I ut d-n-- a\'he. o\" nu\ b. to the otto e"\_or thc anaon o.eo\ to the ossacntioh of oltottes ar the canpetent outharity, as the coseno! be.

10.

So, in view ol the provisions of the Act quoted above, rhe authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complainr rega.ding non-comptiance ofobligations bythe promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adiudicaring officer ii pursued by the complainants at a f.

Findingson theobrections ratsed by the cohptainanr: F.l, Obiection r€garding Force maieur€ circumsEnces: 11.

The respondent-promoter has rajsed the construction of the tower in which the unit situated, has been delayed due to force majeure orders passed by Nauonat creen Tribunat ro contention that the of the complainant is circumstances such as stop corstructio. and developmenr activities, restrictions on usage of water.

The plea of the respondent regarding various orders of the NGT and all the pleas advanced in rhis regard are devoid ofmerit. d ofmerit.

The orders passed by NGT banning consrrucrion in the NCR region was for a very shoft period of tjme and rhur cannot be said ro impact rhe respondent-buitde. leading to such a detay in the completion.

The due date of offer oi possession of the unit is 16.04.2017.

As far as delay in consrruction due to ourbreak ofCovid-19,s concerned, Hon,ble Delhi High Court in case titled as M/s Haltiburton &shore Serytces tnL V/s Vedonta Ltd. & Anr. beo ng no.

O.M.p (i) (Conm.) no. ag/ 2020 ond LAs 3 696-3 69 7 /2 020 dated 29.OS.ZO20 has obseryed rhar- ''69.

The past non.perhrhance ol the contractor cannat be condoned due to the COVI D-19 lockdown in March 2O2A in hdio The Cohttoctot wos in breoch since Septenber 2A19.

Opportunities wqe gtven to th.

Cor4actot to cure the she rcWatedly.

Oespite the sone, the Con,}actor coul.t not @nptete the tuoject.

The outbrcak olo pan.tenic @nnot be uyd 6 on dcuk lor non- p lorhonce ol o contract hr vhich the deadlines were mtch befare the outbreak its6,, 15.

The complainanr and the respondenr failed to execute the Buitder Buyer Agreement and atso no allotment letter is produced on record by either of the parties.

So the due date of possession is catculate.l taking into account the reasonable period as per the CI\IL AppEAL No(S).

3533-3534 OF 2017 M/5.

Fortune tnftastructure (Now known as l,r/5, Hicon hAastructur) & Anr.

Versus Trevor D,tima & Ors, Which is 3 years from the date of altotment but here jn the presenr complaint the alotment letter is not there, so the due date js calculated three years from rhe date ofbooking i.e., 16.04.2014, thus, the due dare of possession comes out to be 76.04.202077.

The F.dr., N"r3r, "r,or3 #HARERA Hounuenqltr respondent ts clajming be.efft oilockdown which came into effecr on 23.03.2020 whereas the due date of handing over of possession was much prior to the event ofoutbreak ofCovid_19 pandemic.

Ther€fo.e.

Ther€fo.e. the Authority is ot the view rhat outbreak ot a pandemic cannot be used as an excuse tor non performance oi a contract aor which the deadlines were much before the outbreak itself and tor the snid reason, the said time period is not excluded white calcularing the delay iD hrndingover possession.

16. 'lhus, the pronroterjespondent cannot be given any leniency on bas.d ol aloresaid reasons and it is well settted principle rhat a pcrson cannot take beDefit oihis own wrong.

C..Findings on th€ re ef soughl by the comptahant: c.l.

Direct the respondenr ro retutrd rhe paym€nt made in tieu of flar till date alongwirh tnterestiI the daie orrearrr"iil"-"ilr," l.ln thc present case, the complainant intend to withdraw from the projecr and is seeking retunr oithe amount paid by her in respect oisublecr untt along lvirh interesr at the prescrjbed rate as provided under section 18(11 oi the Act.

Sec.

1g[1) of the Act is reproduced below aor .eadv 'section 1a: - Rerunolamounton.lconDen ud t8tll ll t he p.oqotu tatls t o conpteE or ; unobtp to oye pose$bn aron opartnen| ptot.or bu dng_ tn odudanton h the tprisat the ogreencnt tor,ote or osthe.ae nay be dul!.onpleted b! the date,pecified thercn,or d@ ta d.,,m,hrcrce ol n$ bdh6. os o dewtopa on at,ant o/ su-Dp4eon ot tpvNot ion oI the t pgirtut ioa undet th6lit or tot aa, hc sho be lioble o4 demm.t to thp o ones. i .oy th, a o "c w'w\ ra wkhdrow Oon thp ptot?cr w houtpreudice tootuothet ComplarnrNo 5j9l of 2023 & HARERA GURUGRAIU re cd!

Noitable, to retur| the omount received by him in re.pe.t -oI thd oportm t_ ptot. bu,tding_ os thc .as; noy be, wuh tnteftrt ot ,u.h fotc o, hoy be prestibe.! r hb ;eha;r tn tLdtno .4 po4.ottnl t4 thenan4 o\ p,av.de\t nloet Lh\a t 12 Date orpossession, ," ,n" r.".",,."n"., Jfl::ffiil1j#lr,"r" "" applicntion in the project.Ansal Hub 83 Boulevard,,, Gurugram aDd paid Rs.7,00,000/ vide cheque no.

044158.

Thereafrer, neirher an . irher an .rllorment letrer has ever been issued by the respondent nor Builder Buyer agreement has been executed in favour oithe comptainant.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court ha shetd in Fortune lnlrastructure Vs.

Trevnr D'Lima Civil Appeat No.

3533-3554/2017 ,,15.

Moreaver, a person cannot be nade to wait indefnitetr lor the posse$on oJ the lots olloxed to them and they ore entitled to seek the refund of the onaunt patd by them, along with conpensotion_ Althoogh we are aelore al the loLt thatwhen therewasno delivery period stipul.)ted in the agreenent, a reasanable time has to be taken into considerotion.

In the facts antl circunstonces of the case, o time period ol 3 rears woutd have been reosonable lu conptetion of ihe contract,.

Vide tetrer dated 16.04.2014, the respondent.equested to deposit rhe batance booking dmount before 08.05.2014.

Thus, makjng it clear rhat the unit has bcen booked beiore 16.04.2014 bur since no specific dare is avajtabte the Authority is calcutating the three year period tiom rhe date of rhe letter datcd 16.04.2014.

The perjod ot three years iron 16.04.2014 expires on 16.04.2017_ Complarnr No 53s1 of 2(]2l #HARERA s ounuennM 13.

Ad missibiltty of refund atong with prescrtbed mte of interest: complainant is seekjng refund of the amount paid by her at The p.escribed rare of interesr.

However, the allortee inrends to withdraw hom the project and is seeking refund of the amount paid by him in respecr ol the subjed unit with interest at p.escribed rate as p.ovided under rule t5 ofrhe rutes.

Rule t5 has been .eproduced as under: Rulc_ ts pfts.nbpd ,ate oJ inteftnr lprottn ro rpcton tz, :p.tto t 3 and \ub. \ection (4) ona "a,",ri", tttq,".n." ii 11) For the purpose oI proviso to sectian 1?,erIian 1s) ond s;b sectians (4) and (7) ol ctio, tg, *" .,***, i, ,ti ii" r,4.nbp4 _Jolt be thd stote Ea,,u o, t,a." h,on-, .u,q,",, .o\r ot tendtnq rute +2%_: r- .\l tmt n _oe tne Stde Bark vt tndtu na,enat \au ar tpndtao tote tv.t k- n hat in u*. hat in u*. , _t o,t o" ,rpt"_ "i o,',,ii ben.hnotk lentling roteswhi.h the stote Bonkaj tndia;dyJit na- tnp Lo unp @, l?aong to hp qe,"at pub,i,. l4.ThF legr\ldlure rn irs wisdom in -h" sub;rdinare t"Br(tarion under rte provision of rule 15 ot the rules, has determined rhe prescribed rrt. ot rnte.est.

The rate of inrerest so determined by rhe legislarure. is .easonable and if rhe said rule is fo owed to award rhe interest. ir witl ensure uniform pract,ce in allthecases.

15 Consequently, as per website ot the State Bank oi India i.e. bttEs,llsbi.loj!, the ma rgi.at cosr of, lendjng rare (in sho.t, MCLRJ as on dnte r.e.,20.11.2024 is 9.10%.

Accordingly, rhe prescribed rate ot inte.esr will be margjnatcost oflending rate +2% i.e., 11.10ol0.

16.The deflnirion ofrerm interesf as defined undersection 2(za) oftheAcr provid.s that the rate of interest chargeabte from rhe allottee by the promoter, in case of detault, shall be equat to the rate of inreresr whi.h F,,,pI"", fr"'53r1 "f ,0r3 HARERA GURUGRAIV the promoter sha be tiable to pay rhe allottee, ,n case of default.

The relevant sedion is reproduced betow: t/"t -nr'e.t ae"n- purabte br' he I,t,a n. at thaaltattoe o F.pta,ot_a" -rat th" putpa..al,h^,,ole _ It th, tate at t4tpta\ .hd,c"abte hoI th oto|ae bJ !," o,aiuPr tn .o e al detau\..ho! be "qLot ta the ro@ nl ia,e,-t whra,h" D,aaLt". holt be\abt; bpq th"o,,";,; tn.o*ofdefautt) h.t ,h- t4t44t ,tl.le t1e p,a,r4t4 h the otlu ,.,hat rc rot1 h.d,tc-r- flonuk, ta,erpd,h" aa.u4t at an!p-,t t _,,,., t, t tl th_ a.p t\" onou4t ot po t t . \/, aat o-J t4t.t a!

1n- tpa4 i- tprLldpd ond the ,np..:t oo)\bla h! tho oltotpe tothe prcnoir shal be lroh d1e dote the allaaedehuti in oo qert tot\aDrvnotot rltth.dot" r p.td l-.ln th' prFspnt.omptdrnt. the comptainanr bookpd a conmprcrdt unit nr the project "Ansal Hub 83 boutevard", situated ar Sector_83, curugram, llaryana l he totalsate consideratjon oirhe unitwas Rs.6s,24,870/, and the complainant has paid Rs.7,00,000/- vjde cheque no. cheque no.

044158 as bookingamount.

The due date for ofaer ofpossession is calcutated as per ie Forrune tnlrastructure ys.

Trevor D,Ltma Clvit Appeat No.

3533- 3534/2017.

By ten:er dared 16.04.2014, the respondent requested rhnt the complainants depost the remainjng booking amounr by 08.05.2014.

Complarnt No.

5lc1 of 21123 This indicates that the untwas booked prior ro 16.04.2014.

However, in the absence of a speciffc booking date, the Authority has considered the three-year per,od from the date of rhe letter, 16.04.2014.

Accordingt, the three-year period from 16.04.2014 would expire on 16.04.2017.

The complainant on 04.07.2022 sent a notice to the respondent through irs ffHARERA S-eunucnav Comph niNn 5let oil02l directors, requesting the respondent to cancet rhe booking of the said unit and refund rhe amount backwith inreresrto rhe complainant.

18.

Thus it can be sstablished thar the complainanr iirst expressed his willing.ess to surrender the unjr on 04.07.2022.

In this communication, the complainant requesred the respondent to a ow him to withdraw fronr the proiect and sought a retund ot the amounts paid, citing the respoDdents failure ro deliver possession oi thc altotred unit ur accordaocewithrhetermsof thebuyer,sagreement.

19.l'here is a detay in handing over the possession as due date ofpossession was 16.04.2017 whereas, rhe respondent has failed to obtain the occupation certificate from the concerned aurhor,ties till date.

The conrplainant had requested to sur.ender the unit to the respondenr on 04 0-.t022 r.e much alpr the due ddte otpo5,ej\io1 20.1hus, keeping jn vrew the afo.esaid factual and tegal provisions, the lailure oi the respondent is estabtished under the Act, 2016 as rhe respondent failed toobtajn theoccupation certificate from the concerned authorities and also offer possession of the unit to the complainanr within the agreed time period. me period.

The respo ndenr cannot retarn the amounr paid by rhe complainant against the allotted unit and is direcred ro reiund the same in view oithe ag.eement ro sell ior altotment along with interest at rhe rate of 11.100/o (the srate Bank of India highesr marginal cost ol lendrng rate (MCLRI apptjcable as on dare +2Eol as prescribed under rule 15 of rhe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Devetopmenr) *HARERA $-eunuennl,r Rules, 2017, from amount within the Rs.7,00,000 11.107o on 76.04.2074 the date 16.04.2014 till rhe timelines provided in rule 2017 ibid.

H.

Directtons of the authority 22.

Hence rhe authority hereby passes this direchons under secrion 37 of rhe obligations cast upon the the authority undersection The respondenr ii directions given in the orderand taitiDg which tegat conseqLre 23.

Complaintstands disposed of.

24.

File beconsigned to registry UGRAlvl Dated: 20.71.2024 Complainr No. s391oi2 order and issues rhe folt Act (o ensure compjianc full paid-up amou 16 of the Haryana Curugram ng a Rules 2017 ibid. ndent to comply with (Ashok Haryana