SHARAD MALHOTRA vs MANGLAM MULTIPLEX PVT LTD

Complaintno. ; Date ofcomplaint : Date oforder : 1.

Sharad Malhotra, 2.

Parveen Malhotra, Both R/o: - U-22, First Floor, DLF City, Phase-lll, Gurugram.

Versus 1.

M3M India Private Limited Regd.

Office At: Paras Twin Towers, Tower-8, 6th Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector-54, Gurugram, Haryana.

2.

M/s Manglam Multiplex Private Limited Regd.

Office at: - GF-1, Vipul Plaza, Village- Haiderpur Viran, Sector-54, Gurugram.

CORAM: Ashok Sangwan APPEARANCE: Mohan Singh (Advocate] Shriya Takkar (Advocate] Complaint No.

1646 of 2023 1646 ot 2023 06.04.2023 30.1o.2024 Complainants Respondents Member Complainants Respondents ffiHARERA H[ eunueneH,t BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM ORDER 1.

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant/allottees under section 31 ofthe Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, the Act) read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and DevelopmentJ Rules,2017 (in short, the Rules) for violation of section 11(41(a) ofthe Act wherein it is infer alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of the Act or the Pagel. of18 y' *HARERA =&-eunuenntrr Complaint No.

1646 of 2023 Rules and regulations made there under or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed interse.

A.

Unit and proiect related details 2.

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

No.

Particulars Details 1.

Name ofthe project L3 M3M 65th Avenue, Sector-65, Gurugram 2.

Nature of the project Commercial complex 3.

14.4125 acres 4.

Provisional allotment Ietter dated 27.06.2017 [page 11 of complaint) 5.

Allotment letter dated 20.01.2078 (page 16 of complaint) 6.

Unit no.

R2 UG 13, Upper Ground Floor, Block-2 (page 1.6 of complaint) 7.

Unit area 213.67 sq. ft.

67 sq. ft. (carpet area) 456.41 sq. ft fsuper area) (page 16 of complaintJ 8.

Builder buyer agreement executed on Not executed 10.

Due date of possession 30.06.20?.2 (as per application form on page 41 of the replyl 11.

Total sale consideration Rs.

7,12,62,373 /- (page 16 of complaint) 12.

Amount paid by the complainant Rs.33,52,347 /- (as admitted by the respondent on page 6 ofreply) 13.

Occupation certificate received on 30.09.2027 (page 78 ofreplyJ Page 2 of 18 Area of the proiect HARERA ffi GURUGRAI/ Complaint No.

1646 of2023 t4.

Notice for offer of possession 25.70.2027 (Page 30 of complaintJ 15.

Pre-cancellation notice dated 25.77.2021 (page 76 ofcomplaint) 1-6.

Cancellation letter dated 10.12.2027 [page 77 of complaint) B.

Facts ofthe complaint 3.

The complainants have made the following submissions in the complaint as well as written sublnissions: I.

That the complainants paid the initial booking amount and booked a shop in the proiect ofthe respondents named "M3M 65s Avenue" at Sector-65, Gurugram and the respondents provided the provisional allotment letter dated 21.06.2077 where the respondents clearly mentioned that the unit bearing no.

R2 UG 15 was allotted to the complainants having super area 441.52 sq. ft- ofRs.

20,790/- per sq. ft.

II.

That at the time of signing the form, the applicants opted for a construction linked payment plan and itwas mutually agreed between the parties that payment would be made in two installments in the ratio of 30:70 i.e., 30% on or before 30.06.2017 (subiect to signing of builder buyer agreement) and 70y0 at the stage ofpossession.

III.

That the respondents compelled and forcefully made the complainants to pay the first instalment amountin g to Rs.32,52,34U - which is more than 100/o ofthe total cost of the allotted unit and also not provided the sanction plan to the complainants. ry.

That on 20.01.2018, t}Ie respondents issued a letter to the complainants informing that the earlier provisional allotment letter dated 21. dated 21.06.2017 stands revoked/annulled/rescinded/withdrawn and will be of no effect and consequences and the allotment of commercial unit in their favour in the said project stand Page 3 of 18 Complaint No.

1646 of2023 HARERA GURUGRAM substituted/varied/revised/altered and henceforth their allotment will be referred to commercial unit bearing no.

RUG 13.

It is also submitted that not only the allotted unit was unilaterally changed, but the respondents also changed the super area.

The said letters have been issued by the respondents unilaterally without any prior intimation/consent of the complainants.

That in the new allotment letter dated ?0.0L.2078, the complainants have been saddled with the obligation of executing and agreement for sale within 30 days of the allotment letter date and its registration within 90 days thereof, falling which the complainants have been threatened in writing by the respondents that the allotted unit would be cancelled, and the amount already deposited would be forfeited.

The complainants did not agree to such aforementioned changes, e- mails were sent as well as contact through mobile with the respondents with a clear-cut objection/intimation not to change the allotted unit; obiection to the change in the super area without any change in the carpet area; surrender of allotted unit on the condition of payment ofassured return on the deposited amount etc.

That instead of accepting the objections of the complainants, the respondents threatened them to terminate the allotment and forfeit the entire amount paid by them in case the complainants didn't sign the said agreement for sale.

That the complainants were left with no option other than to sign an undated printed standard agreement for sale under protest along with undated printed standard documents pertaining to consent/variation/transfer regarding the allotted unit of the complainants and submitted to the respondents. spondents.

That the agreement for sale signed by the applicants is a completely one-sided agreement favouring the respondents.

That the agreement was silent Page 4 of 18 MHARERA Seunuennu Complaint No.

1646 of 2023 on the time period for handling over ofthe unit.

That the respondents cleverly drafted clauses which talk about the possession of the unit however nowhere it mentions the time period within which the respondents are liable to handover the possession.

VII.

That the respondents forced the complainants to sign the changing letter and agreement for sale alongwith other documents but not provided the construction plan and suddenly issued a letter of offer of possession dated 25j02021 of the changed unit, calling upon the complainants to clear all dues on or before 24.ll.ZO2l prior to taking over ofthe possession ofthe allotted unit Since the complainants have lost job due to the Covidlg pandemic and having no other source of finance, the complainants requested the respondents to provide some time for the payment.

VIII.

That without appreciating the one-sided actions/omissions initiated from the side of the respondents regarding non-execution of builder buyer agreement/ cancellation ofearlier allotted unit and allotment of a new unitwithout the prior consentofthe complainants/ non-sharing of tle construction plan non-adherence to any time limit for construction etc. and also without appreciating the request for extension of time till lantary 2022 which was agreed to by the respondents representatives in the minutes of meeting held on 12.72.2027 in view of the precarious financial position of the complainants due to covidl9 pandemig the respondents issued pre- cancellation notice dated 25iJ,1.2021 calling upon the complalnants to clear all dues within 15 days ftom the date of the pre-cancellation notice. on notice.

Since there was no change in the financial position of the complainants, they could not make the payments ofthe dues as per the PaBe 5 oflB ffi HAREBA ffieunuenRu Complaint No.

1646 of2023 pre-cancellation notice dated 25.lL.2021despite their best efforts to secure loans.

That the parties held a meeting on 12.72.202lwherein the issue ofthe complainants' earlier request for surrender of unit and refund of deposited amount with assured return; issue of exaggerated amount being charged from the complainants than other similar allottees of similar uni! issue of extension of time till end of January 2022 for payment of dues for the allotted unit were all discussed.

Apart from- this meetin& many meetings took place between the parties at the office of the respondents.

Furthet vide e-mail dated 25.03.2022, the complainants requested for full refund of the deposited amount without any deduction since t}lere was no positive response from the side of the respondents regarding the issues discussed in the meeting of 12.12.2021.

Vide e-mail dated 31.03.2022, the respondents responded that the allotment has already been terminated due to non- payment ofdues and the complainants have no right overthe said unit.

However, the respondents have remained silent on the issue ofrefund of the deposited amount of the complainants.

The complainants sent another e-mail dated, 77.04.2022 requesting for refund of the deposited mount with interest since 2017 till actual refund, to which there has been no response from the side ofthe respondents.

That the respondents, only with the view to escape its liability to refund the deposited amount ofthe complainants with assured return and to illegally usurp the deposited amount, have illegally and arbitrarily abruptly terminated the alloftrent.

That during the pendenry of this complain! respondents have admitted their liability and has refunded only Rs.24,87,622l- to the complainants. plainants.

The complainants have accepted the above-mentioned ^/ IX.

XI, Page 6 of18 X. ffiHARERA ffi eunuerw Complaint No.

1646 of 2023 amount with protest and demands the rest of the amount with interest but the respondent failed to refund the same.

C.

Relief sought by the complainants: 4.

The complainants have sought following relieffs).

I.

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

5.

On the date of hearin& the authority explained to the respondent/ promoter about tle contraventions as alleged to have been committed in relation to section 11(4) (aJ ofthe Act to plead guilty or not to plead guilty.

W D.

Reply by the respondents 6.

The respondents have contested the complaint vide its reply dated L6.05.2023 on the following grounds: - i.

That the respondent no.

1 i.e.

M3M India Private Limited is neither the promoter nor the developer of the pro.ject.

The mark 'M3M' is being used by respondent no.2 i.e.

Manglam Multiplex Pvt.

Ltd. in conjunction with 'Heights' and '65th Avenue'for its RERA-registered mixed land use development project under a license arrangement with M3M lndia Private Limited, the respondent no.2 herein.

Itissubmitted that the complainants have no privity of contract with respondent no.1 company. ii.

That the complainant after conducting his own due diligence applied for booking of a unit in the proiect "M3M 6sth Avenue" which is an integral part of the mixed Iand use development being undertaken by respondent no.2 and paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards part booking amount.

In due consideration of commitment to make timely payments the complainants were allotted unit bearing no.

R2 UG 15 Page 7 of 18 trHARERA S- eunuenavr Complaint No.

1646 of 2023 vide allotment letter dated 21.06.2017.

The cost ofthe unit for an area admeasuring 212.63 sq. ft. was Rs.1,08,94,948/- plus other charges.

That vide demand letter dated 30.06.2017 the respondent raised the demand due on or before 30.05. ore 30.05.2017 and was also requested to collect the copy of the buyer's agreement from the office of the respondent company.

Thereafter, the complainants were called to the office ofthe respondent and were duly intimated about the change in building plans by and were also requested to raise objections, if any.

The complainants themselves consented for change of unit from R2 UG 15 to R2 UG 13.

The afore-saidlitoqqrnent has been attached by the complainants along with their - dwn complaint and bears their signatures.

Accordingly, the revised allotment letter was issued by the respondent on 20.01.2018.

Thus, by writing email dated 24.07.2018, after period ofabout 6 months the complainants were blowing hot and cold in the same breath.

The complainant thereafter wrote email dated 07.09.2078 wherein he stated that he is willing to continue provided he will be given additional benefits.

However, the said additional benefits were refused by the respondent.

The complainants thereafter never raised any issue and continued with their allotment.

Thus, the alleged email dated 24.07.2078 is infructuous and is of no consequence of whatsoever.

Further, no obiection was raised by the complainants to the revision in building plans.

Thereafter, the respondent acceded the transfer request of the complainants and issued a revised allotment letter dated 20.01.2018 for the commercial unit no.

R2 UG 13 in "M3M 65th Avenue" in lieu of and/or in substitution of the earlier provisional allotment letter for commercial unit no.

R2 UG 15.

It was further informed to the complainants that the allotment of their commercial unit in "M3M 65th Avenue" stands Page 8 of18 ffi& HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

1646 of2023 substituted/ varied /revised/altered and henceforth the allotment of the complainants would be referred to as commercial unit no.

R2 UG 13 on the same terms and conditions as per the schedule ofpayments to be made as earlier. s earlier.

As per the revised allotment letter the cost of the unit for carpet area admeasuring 213.67 sq. ft. was Rs.\,1,2,62,373 /- plus other charges.

Since, the complainants failed to return the duly executed copies of the buyer's agreement and also did not come forward for registration of the same, the respondent issued letter dated 12.06.201.9 requesting the complainants to return the copies ofthe buyer's agreement and come forward for the registratlon process.

That the complainants paid an amount of Rs.33,52,347 /- towards the unit R2 UG 13.

However, as per the payment plan the complainants were supposed make payment of Rs.32,08,879 plus other charges i.e., Rs.

33 ,a4 ,436 / - .

That vide reminder letter dated 20.01.2021 the respondent no.

2 requested the complainants to clear their dues to the tune of Rs.32,088/-, but to no avail.

It is submitted that the complainants were very well aware that time was of the essence in making payments.

That despite repeated requests, the complainants did not come forward to execute the buyer's agreement therefore the respondent vide cover letter dated 04.10.2021, again sent copies of the buyer's agreement for due execution at complainant's end.

That despite the non-fulfilment of the obligation of making timely payment, the respondent fulfilled its promise and completed the construction before the agreed timeline by investing its own funds.

The occupation certificate was granted by the competent authorities on 30.09.2027 after due verification and inspection.

It is submitted lv, vl. vll.

Page 9 oflB ffiIAREIA #* eunuenRvr Complaint No.

1646 0f2023 that the unit was ready, and the respondent vide letter dated 25.70.202L offered possession to the complainants and requested them to remit the outstanding amount ofRs.1,01,63,326/- towards the remaining basic sale price, taxes, cess, stamp duty charges etc.

Thus, the construction of the proiect was completed much before the prescribed commitment period i.e. eriod i.e., fune 2022 and there is no delay in offering possession ofthe unit to the complainants. viii.

That the complainants in violation oftheir agreed obligations failed to remit any amount towards the,dues communicated vide the offer of possession, therefore the respondent was forced to issue a pre- cancellation notice dated 25.1 12021. lx, That despite issuance of pre-cancellation notice the complainants failed to come forward to clear dues, as a consequence of which the respondent was constrained to terminate the allotment of the complainants vide cancellation letter dated 10.12.2021 and forfeit the amount deposited.

That the respondent was constrained to cancel the unit on account of non-execution of the buyer's agreement and non-payment of the demands as raised by the respondent.

That the due date of possession as per the terms of the application form was 30.06.2022 or as may be further revised/approved by the authorities. lt is submitted that despite adverse circumstances like NGT orders, COVID 19 pandemic completed the construction of the retail component and obtained the occupation certificate on 30.09.2027 after due verification and inspection.

It is humbly submitted that despite various opportunities/reminders, the complainants did not come forward to clear their dues but to no avail Page 10 of18 MHARERA ffi,eunuenRHr Complaint No.

1646 of2023 as a result of which the respondents cancelled the allotment of the complainants vide cancellation letter dated L0.12.2021, xii.

That the alleged issue of change of unit has been raised by the complainants as an afterthought with the intent to iustiry their payment breaches.

The said fact is evident from a bare perusal of email dated 25.03.2022 written by t}Ie complainant no.1.

The said email does not contain a whisper ofincrease in area, rather the complainant no.1 has admitted that he does not have the money to make good the outstanding amounts. xiii. nts. xiii.

That the respondent without preiudice to its rights, to bring closure to the matter vide cover letter dated 23.11.2023 sent refund cheques for an amount of Rs.24,87,622/- as per the terms of the application form/allotment.

It is relevant to mention here that the afore-stated amount was accepted by the complainants and the cheques were duly encashed.

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

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

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

E, furisdiction ofthe authority 6.

The authority has complete territorial and subject matter jurisdiction to adrudicate the present complaint for the reasons given below.

E.l Territorialiurisdiction 7.

As per notification no.7/92/201,7-\TCP dated 14.12.2017 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana the jurisdiction of Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram district for all purposes.

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

Page 11 of 18 "/ HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

1646 of 2023 Therefore, this authority has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint.

E.Il Subiect-matter iurisdiction B.

Section 11(41[aJ of the Act,2016 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottees as per agreement for sale.

Section 11[4)[a) is reproduced as hereunder: Section 77,.... (4) The promoter sholl- (a) be responsible for all obligdtions, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations mode thereunder or to the ollottees as per the agreement for sale, or to the association ofollottees, as the case may be, till the conveyonce ofoll the aportments, plots or buildings, os the cose mqy be, to the allottees, or the common areas to the associotion ofallottees or the competent outhoriry, os the cose may be; S may be; Section 34- Functions of the Authority: 344 of the Act provides to ensure complionce of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the ollottees ond the reol estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder.

9.

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

F.

Findings on the obiections raised by the respondents.

F.I Obiection regarding maintainability of complaint against respondent no.

1.

10.

The respondents have submitted that the respondent no.

M3M India Private Limited is neither the promoter nor the developer of the project.

Ltd. in conjunction with 'Heights' and '65th Avenue'for its REM-registered mixed land use development project under a license arrangement with M3M India Private Limited, the respondent no.2.

After considering the documents available on record, it is determined that the respondent no.1 has not only advertised the said project but also all communications with the complainants have been Page 12 of18 MHARERA #, eunueRRvr Complaint No.

1646 of2023 made by it and thus the respondent no.l has acted as a promoter and falls under the definition of promoter under Section2(zk)(v) of the Act, 2016.

Consequently, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to bear the responsibility for the consequences arising from the present complaint.

Findings on the reliefsought by the complainants.

G.l Direct the respondent to refund the paid-up amount along with prescribed rate of interest The complainants were provisionally allotted a unit bearing no.

R2 UG 15 in the project named "M3M 55t!' Avenue" " at Sector-65, Gurugram vide provisional allotment letter dated 21.06.2077.

Thereafter, due to change in building plans, the previous unit allotted to them was changed to R2 UG 13.

R2 UG 13.

The complainant has contended that the respondent had unilaterally changed the unit of the complainants and has increased the super area without any commensurate increase in the carpet area.

Therefore, the complainant requested to withdraw from the project on 24.07.2018.

The complainants further submitted that after change of unit, the respondent suddenly issued a letter of offer of possession dated 25.10,2021 of the changed unit, calling upon the complainants to clear all dues on or before 24.11.2021prior to taking over of the possession of the allotted unit.

Since the complainants have lost job due to the Covidlg pandemic and having no other source of finance, they requested the respondents to provide some time for the payment.

The respondents thereafter issued pre-cancellation notice dated25.77.2O2l calling upon the complainants to clear all dues within 15 days from the date of the pre-cancellation notice.

As there was no change in the financial position of the complainants, they could not make the payments ofthe dues as per the pre-cancellation notice dated G.

17.

Page 13 of 18 ffiHARERA S-eunuennr'rr Complaint No.

1646 of 2023 25.11.2027 despite their best efforts to secure loans.

The complainants had several times requested the respondent for full refund of the deposited amount without any deduction but vide e-mail dated 31.03.2022, the respondents responded that the allotment has already been terminated due to non-payment of dues and the complainants have no right over the said unit.

However, t}le respondents have remained silent on the issue of refund of the deposited amount of the complainants.

The respondent has submitted that the complainants were called to the office of ndent and were duly intimated about the change in building plans by and were also requested to raise objections, if any. s, if any.

The complainants themselves consented for change ofunit from R2 UG 15 to R2 UG 13 as evident from page 27 ofcomplaint.

Thus, bywriting email seeking refund d ated24.07.201,8, after period of about 6 months the complainants were blowing hot and cold in the same breath.

The complainant thereafter wrote email dated 07.09.2018 wherein he stated that he is willing to continue provided he will be given additional benefits.

Howeve4, the said additional benefits were refused by the respondent.

Further, vide reminder letter dated 20.0L.2021the respondent no.

The respondent has completed the construction and development of the project and got the occupation certificate on 30.09.2021 and thereafter vide letter dated 25.10.2021 offered possession of the unit to the complainants and requested them to remit the outstanding amount of Rs.1,01,63,326/- towards the remaining basic sale price, taxes, cess, stamp duty charges etc.

However, the complainants defaulted in making Page 14 of 18 ffiHARERA #-eunuenaHrr Complaint No.

1646 of 2023 payments and the respondent was to issue pre-cancellation notice dated 25.17.2027 requesting the complainants to comply with their obligation.

Despite repeated follow ups and communications and even after the issuance ofthe pre-cancellation letter, the complainants failed to act further and comply with their contractual obligations and therefore the allotment of the complainants was finally cancelled vide cancellation letter dated 70.L2.2021.

Moreover, the respondent without prejudice to its rights, to bring closure to the matter vide cover letter dated 23.17.2023 sent refund cheques for an amount ot Rs. unt ot Rs.24,87,622/- to the complainants and the same were duly accepted and encashed by them.

Now, the question before the authority is whether the cancellation issued vide letter ddted 7.0.12.2021is valid or'not.

12.

On consideration of documents avallable on record and submissions made by both the parties, the authority is of the view that on the basis of provisions of allotment, the complainants have paid Rs.33,52,347 /- against the total sale consideration of Rs.1,12,62,37 3/-.

The complainants have submi$ed that vide email dated 24.07.2018, they have requested the respondents to refund the amount deposited.

HoweveL as per record the complainants later on vide email dated 07.09.2078 shows their intent to retain the unit.

FurtheL as per record, the respondent/builder has obtained occupation certificate on 30.09.2021 and thereafter offered possession ofthe unit to the complainants vide 'notice for offer of possession' letter dated 25.10.2021, subject to payment ofoutstanding dues of Rs.1,01,63,326/- .

The complainant fuiled to make payment of the outstanding dues.

Therefore, the respondent was constrained to issue pre-cancellation letter dated Z5.LI.ZO2'1,, giving last and final opportunity to the Page 15 of18 ffiHARERA ffieunuennll Complaint No.

1646 of2023 complainants to comply with their obligation to make payment of the amount due, but the same having no positive results and ultimately leading to cancellation of unit vide letter dated 10.12.2021.

Further, Section 19(6J of the Act of 2016 casts an obligation on the allottees to make necessary payments in a timely manner.

Hence, cancellation ofthe unit in view ofthe terms and conditions ofthe payment plan annexed with the allotment letter dated 20.01.2018 is held to be valid.

But while cancelling the unit, it was an obligation ofthe respondents to return the paid-up amount after deducting the amount ofearnest money. est money.

Howevel the deductions made from the paid-up amount by the respondent are not as per the law ofthe land laid down by the Hon'ble apex court ofthe land in cases of Maula Bux VS.

Anio,n of India, (7970) 1 SCR 928 and Sirdar KB.

Ram Chandra Raj IIrc.

W.

Sarah C. llrs. (2075) 4 SCC 136, and wherein it wa sheld lhatforfeiture of the amount in case of breach of contract must be reasonable and if forfeiture is in the nature ol penalty, then provisions of section 74 of Contract Act, 1872 are attached and the party so forfeiting must prove actual ddmages.

After cancellation of allotment, the flat remains with the builder as such there is hardly any actual damage.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions in CC/435/2079 Romesh Malhotta VS.

Emaar McF Land Limited (decided on 29.06.2020) and.

Mr.

Saurav Sanyal VS.

M/s IREO private Limitcd (decided on 12.04.2022) and followed in CC/2765/2077 in case titled as/ayant Singhal and Anr.

VS, M3M India Limited declded on 26.07.2022, held that 11ok ofbasic sale price is reasonable amount to be forfeited in the name of "earnest money': Keeping in view the principles laid down in the first two cases, a regulation known as the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Gurugram (Forfeiture of Page 16 of18 ffiHARERA #,eunuennvr Complaint No.

1646 of2023 earnest money by the builder) Regulations, 11(5J of 2018, was farmed providing as under: ,,5, AMOUNT OF EARNFST MONW Scenorio prior to the Reol Estqte (Regulations and Development) AcC 2076 wos dtferent Frauds were carried outwithout any fear as there was no law for the same but now in view of the obove locts and taking into conideration the judgements oJ Hon'ble Notional Consumer Disputes Redressol Commission and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indio, the outhority is of the view that the Iorfeiture omount of the eamest monq/ shqll not exceed more thqn 7 0o/o oI the consideration amount of the real estdte i,e. stdte i,e. opartment /plot /building qs the cose moy be in oll cases where the concellation of I llot/unit/plot is mode b! the builder in a unilateral monner intends to withdrow from the project and any ntoining any clause contrary to the void and not binding on the buyer." oforesoid regulations 13.

Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid legal provisions and the facts detailed above, the respondents are directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.33,52,347 /- after dedrtcting 10% ofthe sale consideration i.e., Rs.7,72,62,37 3/- being earnest money along with an interest @77.10o/o (the State Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) applicable as on date +270) as prescribed under rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 on the refundable amount, from the date of cancellation i.e., 10.12.2021 rill actual refund ofthe amount within the timelines provided in rule 16 of the Haryana Rules 2017 ibid.

14.

Out of total amount so assessed, the respondents shall deduct the amount already paid to the complainants from the above refundable amount.

H.

Directions ofthe Authority: 15.

Hence, the authority hereby passes this order and issues the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted to the authority under section 34(f): Page 17 of 18 HARERA D* GURUGRAM The respondents/promoter is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.33,52,347 /- after deducting 1.00/o of the sale consideration i.e., Rs.1,72,62,37 3/- being earnest money along with an interest @11.100/o on the refundable amount, from the date of cancellation i.e., 10.12.2021 till the date of realization of payment.

Out of total amount so assessed, the respondents shall deduct the amount already paid to the complainants from the above refundable amount. iii. ount. iii.

A period of90 days is respondents to comply with the directions given in this order and failing which legal consequences would follow.

Complaint stands disposed of.

File be consigned to the registry.

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram Dated: 30.10.2024 L: Complaint No.

1646 of2023 t1. t6.

Page 18 of18