VANDANA AGGARWAL vs MANGLAM MULTIPLEX PVT LTD

HARYANA REAL ESTATP REGULATORY AUTHORI GURUGRAM Et{qrqT {-qq-fl fr'hqTrrm qrf}mwr BEFORE Sh.

RAIENDER KUMAR, ADJUDICATING OFFICER, HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGUTATORY AUTHORITY GURUG Complaint no.

Date of order : 522 of2O z 01.O2.20 Ms.

Vandana Aggarwal R/O: C-254-A, Sushant Lok 1, Gurugram.

Complainan Versus Manglam Multiplex Pvt.

Ltd.

Address : LGF, F-22, Sushant Shopping Arcade, Sushant Lok 1, Gurugram.

M3M India Prt.

Address : 6th Floor, North Block, M3M T- Point, Sector 65, Gurugram.

Respondents ffiHARERA fficuRuenAM APPEARANCE: Forl Complainant: For'] Respondents: 1.

2.

Complainant in Perrson Ms.

Bhavya Vijay T:rngri Adv [For Respondent no.L) Mr.

Yogesh Yadav Advocate [For Respondent no.2) ,[L An AuthorityconstituteC under section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation ald Dr:velopment) Act, 201 Act No.

16 of 2016 Passed bv the Parliament of India +!S'qEr rfrfrqm.]tt_ft-snll ufUftreq ,i'. o1^ERT zo & 0rdrrdrrB-flcrfh6-{ur rnra +t gge ErtI qlfud zoro q1 qf{ftqg ggl-q 1 6 ffiHARERA ffi GURUGRAM HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULA'IORY AUTHOR GURUGRAM Eftqrun q-€uar frAqrq-f, qrfYfirr Td'I 1.

ORDER This is a complaint filed by Ms. vandana Aggarwal (allotl under section 31 of The Real Estate IRegulation Development) Act, 201,6 (in brief The Act of 20L6) read v Rule 29 of The Haryana Real Estate tiReguration i DevelopmentJ Rule s, 201-7, against Manglam N{ultiplex pvt. l & M3M India Pvt.

Ltd. (promoters/ developers).

As per complainant, she booked a unit (No,TW-06-1505] M3M Heights developed by respondents, under port yr Property scheme ITDI Espania Royale lrloor was offerecj port the propertlr for two Units). (ln 31.01.20 shefcomplainant) issued cheque for Rs.

1].,00,000/- and mr 300/o payment i.e.

Rs,33,68,670 /- on 02.03 .202L as per paym terms, whereas, she(-complainantJ neither re:ceived BBA r payment receipts within 30 days from the rlate of booki Respondents violated section 11[5) of the ,Act of 201_6, forcing her fcomplainant) to complete 3004 payment within days from the b from the booking date i.e.

31..01..2021-, without execut of BBA.

She(complainant) was shocked on receipt of ttre documents 29.04.2021, that PYP property name mentioned was of Man Buildwell instead of TDI Espania Royale Flor:r which mei respondent/channel partner fabricated s;omeone els property papers in favour of her(complainantJ to trap her a grab the deal to earn handsome commission. {.6 2.

3. "] 'n1 ,itH .,J ,tal in )ur to 2L, rde :nt IOr ng. by' 30 on on ish NS g's nd An Authority constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation and I)evelopmen Act No.

16 of 2016 Passed bv the Parliament of India q-*iv6 1fr ftrm 0{t{- ko.r€ I sfU -fr{qq, o, u fr1 urr zo t Jrdrrd rrFd urftro-{ur rrra oi mra am srfud ,o , u or orfirfrqc wqr6 , o 6 ffiHARERA ffi. eunuGRAM HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUT}IORI GURUGRAM 6f{qm q-€ra qfurqo qrf}nwr An Authorrty constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (Reguiation and n.u.fopnrln,ffiO Ac!

No.

16 of 2A16 Passed bv the Parliament of India q-rio-6t ftftrrr sfrr^fuorO orR&{rcc ,i,u ot-umr ,o &' orf,rn rrB-d srRro'iur 4. shefcomplainant) filed a criminal complaint with court of A [cornplaint number 661,/2021) titled vandana Aggarwal Anubhav Munjal & Others which is now pending in the Cou Ms.

Sanchita Singh IMIC at Gurugram.

5.

0n 28.05.2021,, she(complainantJ met Mr.

Vidit Si [respondent's employee) for refund of her deposited amoun Rs.45,00,000/- approx. but was refuped by them (responde saying that company do not have refund policy and offe her(complainant) to move from Pyp scheme to Non pyp sch at a net price Rs 8500/- per square plus GST' and possess charges which was agreed by her[complainant'1. on 29.07.20 she(complainant) received amended BBA, where responde unanimously changed payment plan.

She(complainant) filed the complaint with Hon'ble RERA 03.09.2021 (complaint no.3282 of 202L) for jusrice and rel as below.

Payment Plan should be reinstated as per original alrotnr letter. nr letter.

Interest should be given to complainant on the zrmount in ex af 1.00/o till the time of execution of BBA.

Interest should be given to complainant on the ermount in exc of 300/o till Occupation Certificate Application.

On 27.01,.2022, Mr.

Vidit and Mr.

Robin MaLngla called [complainant) for amicable settlement and meeting which held at their M3M Heights sample flat office but was successful, and Mr.

Robin Mangla threatened her to face d consequences.

6.

7. ry /$ of qrra o1 riqa iirgr srfud ro, u or orltrftqc EEIro,u B.

0n 31.01,.2022, she[complainantJ received a letter fi respondents stating that unit nun]rber T-06/150s has b cancelled and amount deposited by her(complainant) Rs.4'5,00,000/- approx. has been forfeited as a threat an harass her despite followings facts, 400/o payment of the total consideration was already rnad respondents.

Builder Buyer Agreement was not executed. complaint number RERA-GRG-3282/zoz1 dared 03.0g.Z was pending with Hon'ble Authority towards unanimo change in payment terms. criminal complaint number 66L/zoz1 titled vandana Agga v/S Anubhav Munjal & others which is now pending in the cor of Ms.

Sanchita Singh JMIC at Gurugram. on 03.02.2022, shefcomplainant) filed an application w Hon'ble Authority u,/s 36(1) and 11(s) sr:eking stay cancellation of unit, which was granted by Hon'ble RERA favour of her(complainant). on oz.o1.z0z2, .Aruthority issu i]nterim directions for execution of nla within 30 days and B was executed on 29.08.2022 and collective l,inal order pronounced on 11.0L.2023. $espondents/promoters solicited hef(complainantJ to book ltreir project by misrepresentation artrd cancelation of unit a forfeited the amount deposited by Rs 45 Lacs approx. is a thr therefore the complainant is entitled for corrnpensation physical, mental or even emotionar sufferings which terms insult, iniury and loss financiall 9, 10. all 9, 10. ffiHARERA ffieunUGRAM HARvANA REAL esre]re REcULAToRy AUTHo GURUGRAM An Authority constituted under section 20 the Rea.l Estate (Regulation and Dr:velop ,r.*-.

ABH lft:A#,'.fim :il.5 itrlfls"##Hfo u.'; Eft-qIUIT rI_TiqEI Efrqlrro qrBm-{Ul 3n of 1 v 2 sl qrrc o1 rrre irtr clftn ;;,; ; o'ftFd Gi;]. a a HARYANA REAL ESTAIE REGULATORY AUTHORI GURUGRAM EkqrUII Ll-€qil frfi-qrq$' qrf}fi-{ur 11. constrained in this manner, complainant has approached forum, seeking following directions to respondent : i. compensation of Rs. one crore frorn the respondents towa threating complainant to bear consequences respondents had attempted to forfeit the hard-earnecl mo of Rs.

45, 00,000/- when the 40o/o of the total considerat was paid.

BBA was not signed and matter was sub-ju before the Hon'ble Authority which is unlawful act contempt of court. ii.compensation of Rs. one crore for physical, mental or emotional sufferings which term$ as insult, injury and I financially. iii. compensation for Legal Expenses of Rs 5 Lakhs by . respondent. if.

Any other relief which Hon'ble Adjudicating office may d fit may kindly be ordered in favour of complainant a against the respondents Respondent contested the complaint by filling written reply.

It averred by the respondent :- 12.

That complainant booked the said apartment under the P scheme after being fully satisfied by the status ol the project a booked two residential units which were being developed by t respondent no.1.

Pursuant to the submission of the booki An Authority constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (REgulation and Developni AcI No.

1Q o-f 2016 la_ssed by the parli,ament of India *riq-a rftftqffi rrt{^fuorff) srffifrqqc ,;,u o1 urfl;;t .ffi 6;ri** ffiHARERA ffiGURUGRAM rnra at d.sq im crtrd r., ; or o{ftmi G ;" application form, the complainant oommitted to make ti payments for the said apartment at the agreed cost Rs.1,48,95,564 /-.

13.

64 /-.

The schedule, of payment plan under pyp scheme was 1, Booking amount along with 2oo/o within the first 30 day bool<ing of the said property thereafte r 600/o at the time application of oc and the remaining loo/o at the time of gett possession of the said property.

Allotmerrt letter da 1,6.03.2021 and respondents send copy of BIIA <>n 26.03.202 complainant for her signatures.

14. flhat pursuant to certain discussions fetween the parties and fl good-will gesture, respondent ho.r converted the s property allotment from pyp scheme to the Non-pyp sche {llotment. [n accordance to the revlsed Non-pyp scheme t agreed cost of the said apartment was reduced to I L,12,54,422/- i.e.

INR 8,500 per square ft. along with applica charges and taxes.

15.

The said payment plan was never disputed by the complaina and vide email dated 31,.os.zoz1 the settlement terms we alcknowledged by the complainan{. on 1.g.06.2021,, n allotment letter was once again issued to the rjomplainant respondent no.1 with respect to the said apartment for t revised cost of INR 1,Lz,s4,4zz/-plus other charges. chang payment plan was 50:50.

1-6.

Respondent vide demand letter dated og.06.202l request complainant to make the payment of third demand due on before 3Oth ]une 2021, as per the ment plan.

Revised BBA w II of ofl of ob d n R e I ty LE d An Authority constituted under section 20 the Reat Estate (Regulation and Developmerl AclNo. t6 oJ20t6 frysed by thq parli#nent of India .r."* ffiilf; Ifo"#Si'.fiffi :I.'S ffi lru.##H*iln*., +rra dt q.gE am qlftd ro,u or .illtrftqc ggi6 16 - ffiHARERA ffiGtlRuennM HARvANA REAL esrefo REGULAToRv AUTHo GURUGRAM oRqrun {-riqil ldBqq'6 qrifm-{ur HARERA HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHOR GURUGRAM m GURUGRAM EftqroTT T-TIq-{r ffiqrffi qrrfm-{ul 1.7. sent to the complainant for her signatures on 21. res on 21.07,2 Complainant failed to perform her contractual obligation failed to make further payments as per the revised payment agreed between the parties under the Non-PYP sche reminder letter dated 03.07.2021 was sent to complainan make further payments.

Since the Complainant did not c forward to perform her obligation, respondent no.1 constrained to issue a pre - cancellation notice clated 22.07.2 Instead of making further payments and signing the docume she(complainant) chose to raise false and frivolous allegati regarding the payment plan under the Non-PYP scheme approached ,h.u Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Autho Gurugram vide Complaint no.

3382 of 2021.

During the course of hearing on 8.A8.2022 the complainan bar agreed to make the payment as per the revised pay plan and execute the builder buyer agreement.

Pursuant to order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the Ld.

Authority, the buil buyer agreement dated 22.08.2022 was executed between complainant and respondent no.

1. and complainant out of own sweet will agreed to BBA's terms andl conditions payment plan.

On 02.1,2.2022, the Ld.

Authority dismissed tkre complaint 33BZ of 2021 on merits and observed as ment,ioned below; a. "During the course of hearing i.e. on 03.08.i1022, both pa were directed to execute the buyer's agreement, The s was duly complied with and parties entered into 18.

1.9.

An Authority constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation and Developmen Act No.

16 of 2016 Passed bv the Parliament oi'India t1-tiv-ct @frur< utt^ft-+rwy ffiftqqe ,i,u at^unlo t ot-frrd'rB-d rrRrd-{q rrrra ol tilq-c em qlftd ro,u o1 .nftfrqq riBTiE re il at nd e 1I HARERA GURUGRAM En{qqT T-$ril HARYANA REAL EST GURUGRAM REGULA'IORY AUTHOR agreement on 22.08.2022.

The payment plan so agreed the parties under the said agrelmrnt stipurates for pay of dues in the ratio of 50:40:10.

Given the fact that complainant herself has agreed to the revised payment p the present relief becomes redundant.,, b. dant.,, b. "The complainant had deposited 40,% of the consideration instead of 30% of the sale consideration w was to be deposited as qn lnitial instalment to payment of dues.

The complainant is seeking interest on additional 10% deposited by her.

However, since the revi payment plan stipulates for 50% of sale consideration initial instalment and the compllinant herself has eQr, it hence no interest can be awarfed tu the complainant,,.

20.

That the present complaint under repl1, filed by complainant is not maintainable being barred by the princip of res judicata as the alleged disputes raisecl by the complai have already been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Haryana R estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram vide its detailed orc dated 02.12.2022 wherein the earlier complerint filed by complainant on the same alleged cause of action has be disnrissed. complainant has suppressed materlal facts and taken a contradictory stance and thus the sarne is liable to dismissed.

21.

Neither any complaint has been filed by the complainant agar llleged threats nor the same was brofght to the notice of the Regulatory authority despite the complaint being pendi An Authority constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation and Dr:ve 1r.-* ffiH l*:i*i'.fiffi *.s HIr+.##Hto* {-Trrro din'{qr{ ofi*^fitorsl ffiftqcq ,0,. q;1-Errr ,o t 3{+rrd irf# sil}rf,{rr qtiril tf,t HtrE Ertr vllta zoro oT .rrltftqq Ti@i6.,o )on ent the ofr, ale ich .dc :he ed AS to he CS nt :al er 1e )n ES )e st d. ts I HARERA HARYANA REAL ESTAFE REGULATORY AUTHOR GURUGRAM An Authority constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation and l)6ve GURUGRAM Ei{qTUIT U-sqET Efiqrro qrBnru, Act No.

16 of 2016 Passed bv the Parliament of India q-Tirfl &ftqffi o{tr fuoTfir ,rftrP'rcrtq zo,o of urtl zo } srf,rm rrbd lnRr6-{ur r{rriT al gq-a am crkd zo,o e-I orftfttrq ri@iiF. ro during such time. complainant did not pLlt any evidence present complaint for alleged threats.

22. reats.

22.

Tlat this complaint is devoid of any mfrit and ought to be rej with heavy costs.

23.

I heard learned counsels representing both of the parties and r through record on file.

24.

The averment of complainant that a Unit [No.'r'w-06-1505) booked by the complainant under "Port Your property Sche the complainants paid Rs.

11,00,000 /- on Z1,.Ot.ZOZI and 33,68,670/- on 02.03.2021 making a total of 30o/o of consideration, is not denied on behalf of the respondents.

Simila the claim of the complainant that on 29.04.2021she was shoc to know that the said unit belonged to Manish Buildwell inste TDI Espania Royale Floor or that someone elsel's property allotted to her (complainant), is not denied by the respondet Section 13 of Act of 201,6 bars the promoter from accepting a s more than I0o/o of cost of apartment, plot or building, as the c may be, without first entering into a written dgre -offient for sal does not remain in dispute that respondents did not execute BBA till the Authority, on a complaint filed by pres;ent complain passed an order directing respondents to execute BBA. respondents thus violated the provision of law, reproduced ab ent) Act, 2 ffiHARERA ffieunuGRAM HARvANA REAL esrn]ro REGULAToRv AUTHoR GURUGRAMrl-$rfl ffiqrqo. qtf-fm-{ul Section 18 [3) of the Act provides that if promoter fails to disch any other obligation fother than mentioned in sub sections 1 2), he shall be liable to pay compensation to the allotteers in manner as provided under this Act.

26.

So fdr as the plea of respond{nts that the complai voluntarily opted to shift from pyp Scheme to Non pyp schem concerned, I find weight in the contention of complainant all tha[ same was forced to shift to Non pyp scherne, when it informed to her that said unit belonged to Manish Iluildwell inst of TDI Espania Royal Floor.

27. section 72 of the Act descries factors, which are to be ta into account by the Adjudicating officer, while adjudging quan of compensation. pensation.

Apparently by accepting about 300/o of consideration before executing the BBA, ther promoter respondents got unfair gains, on the money paid by the allottee complainant, consequently causing loss to the allottee.

However, complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.

1.00 crore for threatening to $ear the consequences, Rs.

1.00 crore for physical, mental emotional sufferings, the complainant did not disck)se as how sh entitled for such an amount. when the respondents are found have violated the provision of the Act as described above, same liable to pay compensation.

Keeping in view the facts of the case my opinion, Rs.

2.00 lacs is an appropriate amount to compen An ,A,uthority constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation ard I 25.

Act No.

16 of 2016 Passed bv the Parliamenr of tndia X-dqa tft ftqq-{ orti fdorfi I qf Uftqqq ro, u 61 unr zo ft ordrm qha urRro-{ur qrra o1 €wc rm slftd ,o , u or orltftqs Tisio' , u in te the complainant in this regard.

Same is, thus, allovred, to be pai the respondents.

28.

Apparently, when the ailottee was made to pay 30o/o am in contravention of provision of the Act and unit which respondents had no right/title to allot, was allotted to complainant, the latter suffered mental and emotional pains.

1.00 crore of compensation as sought by the complainant appear be very excessive. same is allowed Rs.

1.00 lac for merrtal emotional sufferings.

Again, the complainant has sought Ils s.00 I as legal expenses.

It is pointed out that complainant herself is Advocate, no other counselwas engaged by her, she is allowed a s of Rs.

50,000/- as cost of litigation.

29. complaint is thus allowed.

Respondents are directecl to amount of compensation mentioned above r,rrithin 90 cl otherwise same will be liable to pay the amount along with inte at the rate of 10.1.50/o per annum the till date of realization.

Announced in open Court File be consigned to record room. cord room.

Iu (Rajende, t<r*u\|/ Adjudicating Officer, Haryana Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram.

03.02.2025 ffiHARERA ffi eunUGRAM EP{qrurr'Lt-Tiq'Er ffiqrq-dr qrlq-m--flr an Afirthority constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (Rfgulation and Development] Act, 201 .r."* &HH lft:i#,'"&Hffi :L.H Iffi ,jru'##HilR; qR-d sil fr'FE ERr qlfrfr zor e or ofilFr+ dqi6, o HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULA'IORY AUT}IORI GURUGRAM