MS. VIBHA GANDHI, vs ALPHA CORP DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,
Party Details
- MS. VIBHA GANDHI
- ALPHA CORP DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Summary
MS. VIBHA GANDHI filed Case No. RERA-GRG-490-2018 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against ALPHA CORP DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED. The case has undergone 21 hearings over 2 years and 11 months. The case was disposed of on 28 Jul 2021. 23 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (21)
- 28JUL 2021Hearing
Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL SAMIR KUMAR
Vide order dated 01.02.2021 the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal has passed the following order while deciding appeal which was filed by the respondent company against the orders of the Authority. The relevant paras of the order are re-produced as under:- Para No.23: Before parting with this judgment, it is pertinent to mention that the respondent/allottee purchased the flat in question from the original allottee on 01.12.2011. The Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 03.09.2011. The total consideration of the flat was Rs.45,99,629/-. The respondent/allottee has already paid the amount of Rs.43,17,465/- to the appellant/promoter. Thus, the substantial amount has already been paid by the respondent/allottee but yet she has not been delivered the possession of the apartment. Learned counsel for the respondent/allottee and is to pay an amount of Rs. 6,33,197/- towards delayed interest as per the order of the learned Authority. Learned counsel for the appellant has now pleaded that the aforesaid amount does not include the holding charges etc. and the appellant/promoter is to recover much more amount. The respondent/allottee had purchased the apartment nine years back. Substantial portion of the basic sale price has already been paid but still she has been deprived of the possession. We are convinced that a direction should be given to the appellant/promoter to deliver the possession to the respondent/allottee on part payment because the decision of the case will take time as the case is being remanded to the learned Authority for re-trial. In view our aforesaid discussions, the present appeal is hereby allowed, the impugned order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Authority is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Authority for fresh decision by following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law. The learned Authority will ensure that the possession of the apartment allotted to the respondent/allottee be delivered to the respondent/allottee within two weeks of her depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with the appellant/promoter, however the final settlement of the accounts shall be subject to the final decision of the complaint”. The counsel for the respondent has stated at bar that the possession of the unit has already been handed over to the complainant. As regards to the grant of delayed possession charges, the counsel for the respondent has stated that they have already filed an application for dismissal of the complaint regarding maintainability of the complaint but no reply has been received by the complainant. The father of the complainant has filed reply to the aforesaid application today in the registry and a copy of the same is also supplied to the counsel for the respondent. In view of the directions passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the aggrieved party is directed to file fresh complaint so that matter can be decided denovo as per the directions of the Appellate Tribunal. Complaint stands disposed of. File be consigned to the registry.
Stage: DISPOSED
- 12MAY 2021Hearing
Judge: K K KHANDELWAL SAMIR KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL
Matter to come up on 28.07.2021 for further proceedings.
Stage: PENDING
- 7APR 2021Hearing
Judge: K K KHANDELWAL SAMIR KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL
Part arguments heard. Authorized representative appearing on behalf of the complainant has stated that they have taken the possession of the unit on 27.03.2021. He has now sought for delayed possession charges as well as other relief prayed by him in his complaint. Counsel for the respondent has already filed objections w.r.t. maintainability of the complaint. Copy of the same has been supplied to the authorized representative of the complainant. First of all, arguments on the point of maintainability shall be heard on the next date of hearing. Matter to come up on 12.05.2021.
Stage: PENDING
Orders (23)
- 28JUL 2021orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 28JUL 2021judgementView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
- 12MAY 2021orderView Order ↗
Order No: N/A
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
ffiHAREI?A ffi"-GuRUGttRH,t Complaint No.
490 of 2018 BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Complaint No. = 490 of 2018 First date of Hearing t 28.08.2018 Date of Decision : 10.L2.2O19 Vibha Gandhi R/o House no.
825,2"d Floor, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-1 1,0003 Ashish Sarin, Director/ M/s Alpha Corp Office : Golf view Tower-A, Sector Gurugram, Hary CORAM: Shri Samir Shri Subhash APPEARANCE: Mr. |.D Chhabra ...Complainant ...Respondent Member Member AR of the complainant EX.PARTE ORDER 1.
A complaint dated 1,8.07.2018 was filed under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,20!7 by the complainant, Vibha Gandhi against the respondent Ashish Sarin, Director/CEO, M/s Alpha Corp Development Pvt.
Ltd. on account of violation of the ush lf Course Road, 2002 Page 1 of 11 HAl?ERA GUt?UGt?AM Complaint No.
490 of 2018 apartment buyer agreement dated 03.09.2011 executed for unit no.
Dt2O3, Tower No D in the project "Gurgaon One", Sector-84, Gurugram.
2.
The particulars of the complaint are as under: - 1.
Name and location of the Project "Gurgaon One" at Sector 84, Gurugram 2.
Nature of project Group housing colony 3.
Occupation certificate 09.70.2017.
4.
DTCP license no 61, of 2009 dated 28.70.2009 5.
Unit no.
D1203,Tower No D 6.
P-p.t rru, ' , .l?t.15 acres 7.
Not registered B.
Date of transfer of allotment (Pg. t6 of the complaintJ 01,.t2.201,t 9.
Date of apartment buYer agreement r0p.09.2011 (page 36 of tht complaint) 10.
Rs.
45,99,6291- @s per schedule of payment page no 61 ,.of the complaint) 11. + ' R543,17, 465 / - fas alleged l'by'th. complainant in iomplaint) 1,2.
Payment plan Construction Linked Plan (page 61 of the complaint) 13.
Date of deliverY of Possession as per clauset2.t - 36 months from the date of start of ground floor roof slab of the tower in which the booking is made i.e' 06.11.2012 + 6 months grace period 06. period 06.05.2016 Note: [Date of ground roof slab of the tower construction is 06.1.7.2012) PageZ of 11 Registeredf unregisteied Total consideration Total amountpaflbY the complainant HARTl?A GUr?UGt?AM Complaint No.
490 of 2018 3.
I The details provided abo'\ checked and found as per the ..- . t. * . ,,; 1r: i:, t, .
I ;;t .r delivered the posiession o.n 13,10,20i-7, The respondent has not paid any inter.t,.i,,:L,llfi neliod it delayed in handing over the I possession.
Therefo.ll; th.,promotdi has not fulfilled his obligation ., " :i: which is in violation of section 11(a)(a) of the Act ibid. , ., i 4.
Taking cogniza.ncg of [t-re complaint, the authority issued notice to the respondent for filing reply and for appearance.
Accordingly, the respondent appeared on 28.08.20t8.
The case came up for hearing on 28.08 .2018, 18.09.2018, 28.09.
201,8, 22.10.2018, 06.1 1,.20t8, 04.72.2018, 08.01.2019, 18.01.2019, 15.02.2019, 11..04.2019' 03.07 .201 9, 0 6.0 B .20 !9, 1 3.0 8.2 0 1 9, 26.09.20 1 9 and 10.12.2019 .
1.4.
Date of offer of possession 13.10.2017 15.
Delay in handing over possession till date of offer of possession i.e.
13.10.2017 L year 5 months and 7 days L6.
Penalty clause as per builder buyer agreement dated 03.09.2011 Clause \2.4 - Rs 5 per sq. ft. per month of the saleable area for the period of delay Page 3 of 11 ffiHARERA ffi- GuIUGRAM Complaint No.
490 of 2018 FACTS OF COMPLAINT 5.
The complainant submitted that she purchased a 2BHK flat no.
D-1203 admeasuringg?3 sq. ft carpet area in the project in the name and style of "Gurgaon One" a residential project located at sector 84, Gurugram and the unit was duly transferred to her by the original allottee Mrs.
Punam Khurana vide Letter dated 01,.72.20 AGDPL/COM/GOB 4 /16 6.
The complaina charging the and the delay.
The complaina last and final ACDPL/CO alleged the entries bas memo nt has been on linked plan ues without any inant received the vide Letter No 1,3.1.0.2017 and superfluous of 89 sq. ft and 7. ft and 7.
Escalation in cost in total amounting to Rs.
5,48,986(including GST) were unjustified.
9.
The complainant submitted that certain areas and facilities promised by the respondent in the project brochure had inadvertently been omitted while computing the saleable area, Page 4 of 11 ffiHARERA #" GIJRUcRAM Sale Price I the basic s of purcha respondent the Escalation.
The complai escalation is Complaint No.
490 of 2018 and this was a common error/variation in respect of all customers wherein rectification has been uniformly carried out for all the customers of the project.
10.
The complainant also submitted that although as per clause 4.1, the respondent has maintained that the basic sale price has been calculated on the basis of the current prevailing sale price of input mate ation in the sale prices of input materials , if any ole sale price Index (WPI) shall be borne by to mention the Whole has failed to provide ialculation sheet showing any escalation.
Hence, the respondent can escalation. not charge any amount on e of calculation of paid at the time Further, the for calculation of para 4.1, 5o/o of imself.
However, 11.
Page 5 of 11 ffiHARERA ffi"GutUoRAM Written Subm Relief sought The reliefs sought by the complainant are as follows: L3.10.2017. ii.
Direct respo complete the Complaint No.
490 of 20LB the accessories, furnish, the possession of the flat plainant cannot this authority and is urisdiction. complaint is not Direct the respondent to waive extra amount charged on last installment demand on account of additional common area and escalation as per demand letter dated The respondent 12.
The respo maintain the p liable to be dism 13.
The respon maintainable under section 3L of the Act against Director-CEO of M/s Alpha Corp Development Pvt Ltd without impleading the promoter as defined under section Z(zk) of Act. t4. f Act. t4.
The respondent also submitted that the present dispute arising out of a Real Estate project which was initiated, Page 6 of 11 ffiHAREI?A --ffi* GIJI?IiGRAM Complaint No.
490 of 2018 sanctioned and completed much before the promulgation of the Act.
15.
The respondent also submitted that the "real estate project" in question cannot be said to be an "ongoing project" defined under rule 2(1)(o) of the Haryana Rules and therefore this authority does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present 1,6. complaint. :-: The respondent also su6fi t the Hon'ble Bombay High v Union of India l2}1.t projects and expressly ruled out in para 260 the applicability of the projects which are either completed before the commencement of the Act or projects regarding which occupation certificate has been applied for.
Findings of the authority 17. ]urisdiction of the authoritY Subj ect Matter Iurisdiction The authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliance of obligations by the promoter as held in Srnrmr Sikka v/s M/s EMAAR MGF Land Ltd.
Territorial f urisdiction Court in a case titled as Neel ;e titled as Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt.
Ltd. dia [2018 [1) RCR 298) has clarified the ongoing PageT of 11 ffiHARERA ffi"GUiiUGRAM Complaint No.
490 of 2018 As per notification no.
7192120t7-|TCP dated 74.1'2.2078 issued by Town & country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with offices situated in Gurugram.
In the present case, the project in question is situated within the planning area of Gurugram district, therefore this,-apthOrit-y has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with th t complainant.
NOTE: None is present on behalf of the respondent despite calling the matter twice.
It seems I that the respondent is not interested to bontest the matter and, as such, is proceeded 18. ceeded 18.
The complainant has,sought delayed possession charges and raised following points for consideration of the Authority: o The respondent has added 89 sq. ft. more area against the total allotted area of 1181 sq. ft. whereas the respondent cannot add or reduce more than 5%(+-) of the super area.
As such, respondent is directed to charge only 5% of the super area. complainant has further raised objection with regard to car parking charges which is in the basement and is Page B of 11 ffiHARERA ffi"GURuGRAM 1,9.
Complaint No.
490 of 2018 covered and as such, this plea of the complainant is not tenable.
Respondent has demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as escalation charges which is not justifiable and as such, the respondent cannot link escalation charges with the price index.
As such, on charges amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- is un Respondent has on 09.10.201.7 and offered the the complainant on 13.10.20 agreement, ment buyer's possession of period of 36 months to hand over the lainant within a grace period from the date of start of ground floor slab of the particular tower in - ng is made i.e.
06'11..20t2.
Thus, the due date which the booki of possession comes out to be 06.05.2016, as such, the complainant is entitled for delayed possession charges from 06.05.2016 to 13.10.2017 at the prescribed rate of interest i.e' L0.20.o/o p.a.
Page 9 of 11 per claus e t2.1,of ffiHARTRA ffi- GutUoRAM Complaint No.
490 of 2018 Decision and directions of the authority 20.
After taking into consideration all the material facts as adduced and produced by both the parties, the authority exercising powers vested in it under section 37 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 hereby issues the following directions to the respondent in the interest of justice and fair play : The respondent i to pay delayed charges at i.e.
0t7 annum provisi & Deve possession !0.20o/o per as per the ,(Regulation over the possession of 30 days by making the ling which the ii. ch the ii.
The complain'Ant ii 't: of the unit within requisi i ii. respondent shall be entitled to charge holding charges. lnterest on the due payments from the complainant shall be charged at the prescribed rate of interest i.e- L0.200/o p.a.by the promoter which is the same as is being granted to the complainant in case of delayed possession' Page 10 of 11 ffiHARERA ffi" cl.tRUcRAM (sr,nkx,rmar) iv.
V.
490 of 2018 Complainant is directed to pay outstanding dues, if any, after adjustment of interest for the delayed period.
The promoter shall not charge anything from the complainant which is not part of the apartment buyer's agreement.
The order is prono Case file be consigned 27.
28.
Member Dated: 1.0.1,2.20t Chander Kush) Member , Gurugram a; aa ,, Page 11 of 11 JUDGEMENT UPLOADED ON 28.01.2020