SUNITA SAINI AND INDER PAUL SINGH SAINI vs NEO DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.

BEFORE RAIENDER KUMAR, ADIUDICATING HARYANA REAI, ESTATE REGULATORY GURUGRAM lMrs.

Sunita and Anr. vs.

M/s Neo Developers Pvt.

Ltd.

1.

OFFIC AUHORIT Complaint No. :4292-2OZ Date of Decision: 06.04 .2Oz Mrs.

Sunita Saini wife of Mr.

Inder Paul Singh saini, Mr.

Inder Paurl Singh Saini son of Rajinder Singh tsaini, both residents of Rashi Apartment, Flat No.10, Plot N Sector-7, Dwarka Phase-I, New Delhi-110075. ....

Complainants.

Versus M/s.

Neo Developerrs Private Limited, L205, Tower-ll, Signatu Tower, South City-I, NH-8, Gurugram, Haryana-122(10L., Also, at:32b, Pusa Road, Delhi-1-10005. ....

R.esponden APPEARANCE For Complainants: For Respondents: Ms.

Priyanka Aggarvral, Advocate Mr.

Venket Rao, Advocate.

ORDER This is a complaint filed by Mrs.

Sunita Szrini & Mr.

Inde Paul Singh fallotteesJ, under Section 3]. read with Section 71 of Th 1.

2.

An Authority constituted under section 20 ttre Real Estate (Regulation and Develop:ment, "*,kO Act No.

16 of 2016 Passed bv the i'arliament of lndia rt-dqa tftf+qrra s}t fuorsl qftftqc, zdro of um zo t orfrn rrBd srfqo-{ur qnt o1SsE rm qlfr? zoro o'r irfuftqc ggirD 16 Mrs.

M/s Neo Developr:rs Pvt.

2 Real Estate [Regulation and Development) Act,2076 (in brief Th Act of 201,6) read with Rule 36(1) of The Haryana Real Esta (Regulation and DevelopmentJ Rules, 2A1,7 against M/s N Developers Private Limited. (promoter).

The brief facts of the complainants' case are that 20.05.2013, they (complainantsJ booked a commercial shop in project "Neo Square" in Sector-1,09, Gurugram and issued a chequ amounting to Rs.

L0,L6,322/-.

Thereafter, the respondent allo unit No.

36 on ground floor admeasuring 565 Sq. fit to the (corrplainantsJ vide Allotment Letter dated 19.08.2013.

The (conrplainants) paid a sum of Rs.

31.,67 ,264 /- well br:fore signing o the Buyer's Agreement on 1Oth November,20L6.

3.

That as per BBA entered between the parties, the tota cost of the said unit was Rs. it was Rs.

66,26,L34/- inclusive of taxes, out o which Rs.

63,48,338/-was paid by them (complainants) fro 20.01r.2013 to 20.A7.2018.

Despite paying such huge amount, th project is still incomplete and existence of their unit is still in dou The respondent was iiable to handover possession of'their sho before 09.1,L.2019, as per Buyer's Agreement, but the responden An Authority constituted undel' section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Act No. l(> of 2016 Passed by the Parliament of India {-riq-ar &frqrq-r ortr ft $Fs) qft rt+rfi , zd ro o1 gryr z o t srt H .Tfud crfufi '{uI r+rm fr t-+rr rm qrfud zoro 6l srfuF{qq {iglir 16 o th , l^b -fr-o- Mrs.

M/s Neo Developers Pvt' Ltd.

3 failed to complete the proiect and to obtain the occupan certificate for the unit in question, due to which, the fcomplainants) have suffered a great financial loss, mental trau and harassment.

4.

That being aggrieved with the acts of the responden they fcomplainants) filed a complaint bearing n0.

7535 of 202 before the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Aut.hority seekin refund of amount paid by them along with interrest, which wa allorued vide order dated 08.02.2024.

The Authority rCirected th respondent to refund the amount, i.e., Rs.63,48,338 / - received by i (respondent) along with interest at the rate of 10.ti50/ per annu from the date of each payment till the date of actual refund.

5.

Contenrling all this, the complainants have prayed fo following reliefs: - I. to direr:t the respondent to provide Rs.2,44,48,866/- towards loss on redemprtion of FDs. c0mpensation ii. to direr:t ttre respondent to provide compensation Rs.2,54,98,450/- towards loss of opprortunity cost accouLnt of earl An Authority constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 201 - Act No.

16 of 2016 Passed by thq Parliagrent of India lt-sq-{r di'i*q+ 3fu-Elorg) .nFi'F^{qc, zdro d uro zo * ordrrc qBa srRrEt{ur rnra d frwE gm wfra zoro o't . zoro o't .sdttiqlT TRqIi[' 16 /t_]_ A'o I\4rs.

M/s Neo Developers Pvt' Ltd' 4 the current rate of the unit in question has escalated steeply in the last 12 years. iii. to direct the respondent to provide the total rental du of Rs.57,76,438.36/- that has been incurred by th complainants due to the delay in possession of the uni by the respondent, along with all other faciliti amenities and services as mentioned under t brochure and Builder Buyer Agreement and assured a the time of booking; iv. to direct the respondent to provide the total loss o interest. to the tune of Rs.14,45,900.64/- that has bee incurred to the comPlainants. to direct the respondent to provide the compensatio of Rs.

5,,00,000/- towards the legal costt; in'curred' to direr:t the respondent to provide compensation Rs.50,00,000/- for continuous harll:;smLent of t complainants due to their non-compli;rnce of Judgmernt dated 08.02.2024 of the Authoril"y.

6.

The respondent contested the complarint by filing written reply.

It is averred by the respondent thart when th Application Form was submitted by the complainants fbr allotme of unit in the projer:t, they were very well aware and acknowled that the building plans for the said project were not silnctioned V. vi.

An Authority constituted urrder section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation 3nd Development) Act, - ActNo.

16 of 2016 PassedbythqParlialnenlof India u-rtq-a-riiiffi ;x"aa+-*ntt""-ra4ag:gf,ll,1rrkdurtunvr rnraof drrarmwR? zoro6'I lflqfiqqs€qFr 16 Mrs.

M/s Neo Developrers Pvt.

5 the Competent Authority.

Even in the allotment letter, it was clea melltioned that the allotment of the unit is only provisional.

7.

That the complainants have failed to comply with schedule of payments.

The respondent, after cancellation of the un in its project "Neo Square" requested the complainants to hando the original documents pertaining to the unit and to collect t refund amount as per terms and conditions of agreement da reement da L0.'L1,.201,6.

Howerrer, the complainants did not p;t1r any heed to request of the respondent.

B.

That the complainants have paid onll' Rs;.63,68,340 against the dues of Rs.73,68,749/- including interest on delay payment.

Since the complainants failed to pay the total consideration, the respondent cancelled their unit otr 16.12.20 afterr making repetitive reminders to the complainants;.

9.

That aggrieved by the action of cancelling the unit the respondent, the complainants preferred a complaint beari No.753 5 of 2022 against the respondent before the Ilaryana Re Estate Regulatory Authority and the Authority vide its order da t'u=.

An Auttrority constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation-3n$ Development) Act, 201 " Act No.

16 of 2016 Passed bv the Parliar-nen-t of India 1pfiq-dliiiifqm rir frmrs, oifuf{qc, zoro ot3lr zo t sr{rm .rB-d Inftrfiq rnra d mr< rm qrftil zoro 6l orftfr{rq qgiir' 16 t r Mrs.

6 08.02.2024 directed the respondent to refund Rs.63,48,338/- alon with interest at the rate of 10.85% per annum.

Denying all averments of the complaint, the responde 10. has prayed for dismissal of it (complaint).

It.

Both of the parties filed affidavits in support of the 1,2. claims.

I have heard learned counsels appearing fbr both of parti and perused the record.

Factual matrix i.e. allotment of unit (commercial sho admeasuring 565 square feet in project "Neo Square" Sector-L Gurugram by the respondent to the complainants on total cost Rs.66,26,L34/- (inclusive of taxes).

Said shop was to be handed to the allottees/cr:mplainants before 09.1.1.20L9 and that t respondent failed to complete the project, are not disputed duri deliberations.

The claim of the complainants that layout pla showing unit of the complainants was never approved, is also n denied. n denied.

The plea raised by the respondent in this regand is that complainants were aware and acknowledged that the buildi plans of said project were not sanctioned by the compete authority. lu An Authority constituted urrder section 20 the Rea-l Estate (Regulation^ancl Development) Act, 2O1 - Act No.

16 of 2016 Passed bv the Parliamen! of India +f-dq-a r fr ftqr+ ortr fuorfl ) orft f{qc, zd r s o1 -tns z o t srtffi 'rfud clf rroTur rnra o1€q-c gm qrfoa zoro 6.t 3rfttftqq rigiiD' 15 Pr 13.

Mrs.

7 Admittedly, present complainants filed a complai before the Authoriry i.e. complaint No.7535 of 2002,, which wa allowed by the Authority vide order dated 08.02.2024.

Th Authority in its order referred clause 5.1 of BBA, which mention about the company (respondent) having been author:ised by th allottees to carry out construction as per design finalised by th management of the company.......,.....the company :rt its discretio without any prior approval from the allottees may cat:ry out suc additions, alterations, deletions and modifications in the layout a building plans.........,the allottees agree that no future consent of th allottees shall be required for this purpose.

L4.

Referring said provision of the BBA,learnecl counsel the respondent claimed that having agreed to thLeser terms, complainants cannot claim compensation allelging that respondent could not get approval from the compertr:nt authority t get liayout plan of th,e project in question sanctioned or rnodificatio in the layout plan.

15.

I do not find much weight in this contention of learne An Authority constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2O16 Act No.

16 of 2016 Passed bv the Parliament of India trira rfrFmr< sll-{ fforo otftftqc, zdre o1-u1tr zo t srt rt qBa clfkorul rnra cff Srd ERr qtfta zore ol .ilftrftqq riigiis' 16 counsel for the respondent.

Even if there was any such covenant i \ ilrrL Mrs.

Sunita and Anr. vs. d Anr. vs.

B the agreement, same being contrary to law, cannot be enfo Trite it to mention here that Section L4 of the Act of 2016 obli the promoter to adhere to sanctioned plans and proj specifications.

The same cannot make any addition or alteration i the sanctioned plans, layout plans and specifications withou pre'rrious consent of the allottees.

What to say of addition an alteration in the layout plan, no layout plan of the project i ,{.1^,owrp *r^61tc,( t*^it- (--- questio nnwat ever'sanctioned.

1,6.

1.7.

Similarly, I am not inconsonance with learned couns for the respondent claiming that the complainants are not entitle to any compensation as they did not adhere to pavment pla Admittedly, paymerrts were to be made, when the resprondent w ready to complete l"he construction as per BBA.

Even ,layout plan were not sanctionetl.

All this verifies 'violation of ag,reement' on th part of the promoter.

Even otherwise, even if any derfault was mad by the allottees in making payment, the promoter had remedy recover the amount, as per BBA.

The Authority while allowing complaint No.7535 2022 filed by same complainants was of the opinion that due da l.-; An Authority constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 Act No.

16 of 2O16 Passed bv the Parliament of Indizr U-riq-a rfrfrrrm ofrt Ffo,ro st{t -ffrc, zdro o13ryr zo t' .rrdrn rBa srRrs-{ur +nra o1 frwE gm cIfril zoro 6'I srfufrqq rigr.D' 16 of possession came out to be promoter/respondent failed to complete liable to refund the amount.

18.

According to Section 1B(1) of the Act of 201,6, i promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of a apartment/plot or building- (a) In accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or, the case may be, duly completed by the date speci therein: or he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case allottee wishes to withdraw from ihe project, without prejudice any other remedy available, to return th return the amount received by him including compensation in the manner as provided under and th and hence Mrs.

9 1,0.05.2020 the project (b) Act.

1.9.

When the respondent failed to complete the project a to hiandover the possession in time, the complainants are thu entitled for refund of their amount as well as compensation.

An Authority constituted under section 20 tlle Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Act No.

L6 of 2016 Passed bv the Parliament of India livqr 1ftfrarn .& froru1 srftEqc, zdrs o1-ryr zo $' srt rd.IE-d crftrowl rrnacigr"Erl o'Uu ,oru* qfuRuqgqr .1G 3rS PVt.

Ll the fac )fficer, r,l or ul s a resu defaulU ting ofl ce of jus part of Mrs.

M/s Neo Developers 10 20.

Section 72 of the Act of 2016 prescribes tl which are to be taken into account by the Adjudicating Offi adjudging quantum of compensation and the same are: - [a) the amount of disproportionate gain ( advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as ; the defaulu (bl the amount of loss caused as a result of the de (cl the repetitive nature of the defaul! (d) Such other factors which the adjudicatir considers necessary to the case in furtherance 21,.

Admittedly, the respondent received major pi consideration, but did not start construction eve (respondent) gained unfair advantage causing consequent the complainants.

22.

The complainants have prayed for compen Rs.2,54,98,450 /- towards loss of opportunity costs escalation in rates of the properties.

The complainants ha file copy of a sale deed of a commercial shop in Se Gurugram i.e. same sector in which the unit in question wa uen ffice stice I salt iamt rss tt )no etc rt or .109 Pvt.

Ltd. re factor cer, whi r unfa result r faulU g officr of justic rt of sal n.

Sam ial loss t ;ation o due tr re put or :tor-L0! d constituted under section 2O the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Act No.

16 Act No.

16 of 2016 Passed bv the Parliament of India rr-qqal rftfrsrr !t{ fro,rgl srftfrqc. zrirs d trm zo o etiirrd qfud slitmwl r{rta of erq unr cIk zore ol orfufrrf,q iHgiir 16 Mrs.

L1, by the respondent, in favour of the complainants and again th latter have referred some screenshots of a Real Estate site i.e.

99 acre.com.

23.

These screenshots of 99 acre.com are not reliable evidence.

Same can be stated 'offer for sale, and hence not conclusive evidence, about the prevalent prices.

Genuineness of sale deed, copy of which is put on file, is not disputed during arguments on behalf of the respondent.

If same is taken as true, a commercial shop Iike shop in question and situated in same vicinity was sold for a price of Rs.one crore, in otherwords atthe rate of Rs.20,000 /-pe, square feet.

If calculated at the rate of Rs.20,000 /- per square feet, the price of unit in question (if completedJ comes out to be Rs.1,13,00,000/-.

Admittedry, out of total sale consideration of Rs.66,26, L34 /-, the complainants paid a sum of Rs.63,48, 338 /- only i.e. ap;rroximately 95.80o/o of total sale consideration. counting in this way, if the amount of Rs.63,4B,z3B/- was invested in sirnilar unit, the same would have been appreciated to Rs.1,0g,2 54oo/- (95.80% of Rs.1,1 3,00,000/-). {n[-=-- An Auttrority constituted under section 20 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Ap1No. tQ o!2016 p-aqsed by the earlalnent of India .(-fr ra rft frqE sfu tu6ro srRitr{c, aj, o dfi inr }-J Ar.* "iffi'riBilft 6r"r r{rtil stt EfE Ertr qIFf, zors EI orftfrqq .ld-gi-fi 16 ka Mrs.

Ltd. t2 24.

Admittedly, the respondent has already been di by the Authority to refund the amount of Rs.63,48,338/- to th complainants vide order dated 01J,z.zoz4, the complainants a thus allowed compensation of Rs.44,z7,062/- fcrr Ioss o I appreciation in the price of shop.

25. shop.

25. when the complainants have already been allowed the compensation for loss of appreciation in price, no reason to allow ! any compensation in the name of loss on account of early redernption of FDs or compensation in the name of rental dues and 27.

The complainants further requested for compensation 'f Rs.5 lakhs towards legal costs.

No court fee is required to be paid again compensation for loss of interest.

Requests in this regard are declined.

26.

The complainants have prayed for a sum of Rs.50 Iakhs on account of continuous harassment due to non-compliance of judgment passed by the Authority.

Even i(, order passed by the Authority has not been compried with by the respondent, the complainants have remedy to file execution.

There is no reason to allow any compensation in this regard. 'constituted under section.2gJh.

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Ap!

No.

1Q of 20 l6 p-a_ssed bV the parliinent of India {-riq-o rfrftqr{ vt ho,nD orftt+rq, z,iro #irm zo Siit r;'riirii;fufi"7 qrra o1 drc rm clft? zoro oT.]rftftrrE risri; re" - -' Mrs.

13 to th that 10.85 amoLl 29.

J{-- tii B. li 2 rdings of this case, same are allowed a sum of Rs.50,0 oo /- a on expenses.

The respondent is directed to pay aforesaid amounts o nsation to the complainant along with interest at rate per annum from the date of this order, till realization Complaint is thus disposed of.

File be consign room. in open court today i.e. on 06.04.2026. (Rajender Kumar) Adjudicating Haryana Real Regulatory Gurugram. constituted under section30S" Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,20l6 .

A-c!

No. lQ o[ 2OL6 p_a_ssed by the parliinent of India q-riu-qr 1EP+urr 3fu ft -o.re1 srtu ^hqq, rdr. +i :'Er i;* ;eG'.i*;f tsrrr to th rnrt o1rirq fu'cfrd roi;; utfffi +#'r;