VINOD DALAL vs SEPSET PROPERTIES PVT.LTD.

Vinod Dalal, S/o Ved Prakash Dalal, Through G.P.A Holder- Devinder S/o Ved Prakash Dalal, R/o: - H-002, BPTP Park Prime, Sector-66, Gurugram, Ha M/s Sepset Propertie Regd.

Office at: - 11 Tower-8, Sec-54, Gol Gurugram, Haryana.

Also At: - Room no.

2 S-551 School, Block-ll, Delhi-110092.

Complaint No.

1230 o t 2079 /7 23 of 202L Complaint no.

1230 of 2079 /723 of 202r First date ofhearins: 27.LL.20L9 Order pronounced on: 72,O4.2023 Complainant Respondent Member Member Member Complainant Respondent ffiHARERA S- eunuennrrl CORAM: Sh.

Mukul Kumar Sanwariya [AdvocateJ Sh.

Akshay Sharma (Advocatel ORDER 1..

The present complaint dated 02.04.2019 has been filed by the complainant/allottee under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, the Act) read with rule 28 ofthe BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGMM lcome Plaza, (arpur, Page 1 of 18 HARERA ffiGURUGRAI/ Haryana Real Estate fRegulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (in short, the Rules) for violation of section 11(al(a) of the Act wherein it is inter alta prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provision of the Act or the Rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale executed inter se.

Unit and proiect related details The particulars of unit detailt.:sale.consideration, the amount paid by the complainants, date of prQpl$.B$rtilirding over the possession, delay period, if any, have teen 5lo,,affiqyowing tabular form: Complaint No.

1230 of2079/723 of 2027 A, 2. s.N.

Particulars Details 1.

Name of the proiect Paras Dew', sector-106, Gurugram ) Nature of proiect Residential group housing proiect 3.

RERA registered/not registered Registered L18 0f 2017 dated,28.08.20U 4.

DTPC License no.

6l of 201.2 dated 13.06.2012 ValidiW status 12.06.2020 Name of licensee Sepset Properties Licensed area 13.76 Acre 5.

Unit no.

602,6s floor, Tower-C [As per page no. r page no.31 of complaint] 6.

Unit measuring 1760 sq. ft. [As per page no.

31 of complaint 7.

Date of execution of Flat buyer's agreement 02.04.2013 [page no.

28 of complaint] 8.

Allotment Letter 10.01.2013 [page no.

25 of complaint) 9.

Possession clause 3.

Possession 3.1 Subject to Clause 10 herein or any other circumstances not anticipated and beyond the reasonable control of the Seller and any restraints restrictions from any courts/ authorities and subiect to the Page 2 of 18 ffi& HARERA GU11UGRAM Complaint No.

1230 ot2079/723 ot 2027 6il Purchaser[s) having complied with all the terms and conditions of this Agreement and not being in default under any of the provisions of this Agreement and having complied with all provlslons. formalities, documentation, etc. as prescribed by the Seller, whether under this Agreement or otherwise, from time to time, the Seller proposes to hand over the possession of the Apartment to the Purchaser[s) within a period of 42 (Forty Two) months with an additional grace period of 6 (six) Months from the date of execution of this Agreement of date of obtaining all licenses or approvals for commencement of construction, whichever is later, subiect to Force Maieure.

10.

Due date of possession o6.09.2077 (calculated from the date of approval of is allowed being 11.

Environmental clearance 0 6.09.2 013 L2.

Total Sale consideration Rs.1,18,87,200/- (as per payment plan on page no.61 of complaint) 13.

Total amount paid by the complainant Rs;7,13,2d,204/- [As alleged by complainant in his written submission and also as per statement of account on page no.

61 of replyl 14.

Occupation certificate dated 15.01.2 019 15.

Offer of possession 24.0t.2079 Page 3 oflB I ffi& HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

1230 of 2019 /723 of 2027 B.

Facts ofthe complaint: 3.

The complainant has made the following submissions: - I.

That the project named 'PAMS DEWS" is being developed by respondent on a parcel ofland admeasuring 13. suring 13.762 acres situated at Sector 106, at Village- Daultabad, Tehsil & District Gurgaon. ll.

That on relying upon the facts and assurances of timely competition of proiect by the respondent's representatives, the complainant booked a flat bearing no. n 6th floor, admeasuring super t letter dated 10.01.2013 for a area of 1760 sq. ft. vide total sale consideratio 00/- and paid a sum of paid Rs.L,1,3,26,204 / - in all. on 02.04.2013. eement was executed the project was to be ace period from the date for handing .20L7 but the same was IU.

That as per c completed wi execution of th over possession offered on 24.0L.207 never shared RERA, Act, 2016.

That the respondent has illegally charged an amount ofRs.3,00,000/- for allotment of Car Parking Space exclusive of the basic consideration against the settled principle oflaw and natural justice.

That the respondent kept on demanding payments from the complainant but never showed its willingness to complete the construction on time.

REC IV.

That the complainant inquired about the status of construction and other development work to be carried out by the respondent but it information in gross violation of Sec 19(2) of ?l rl-d{ VI.

PaBe 4of 18 HARERA MGURUGRAI/ VII.

That the complainant suffered losses or damages due to false and incorrect statement or commitment made by the respondent for delivering the possession of flat within stipulated time.

Thus, the complainant is entitled to withdraw from the respondent's project to get the refund along with in terms Sec 18(1J of the REM, Act, 2016.

VUl.

That the respondent not only failed to construct the unit within the stipulated timeline as per BBA but also made major alterations in the Iayout plan without even Relief sought by the comp The complainant has so ief(sl: I.

To refund the e .7,73,26,204 / - (Rvpees One Crore Th Two Hundred and Four onlyJ al on the date explained to the alleged to have been respondent/pro committed in relati not to plead guilty. ad guilty. e Act to plead guilty or Reply by the responde The respondent ly dated 26.1.0.2020 on the following grounds: - i.

That the complainant is not a genuine flat purchaser or consumer and purchased the said flat for commercial and investment purposes for which the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Authority cannot be invoked, as the object of RERA Act is to protect the interests ofthe consumers and not the investors. ii.

That the present complaint is not maintainable as the possession had to be handed over to the complainant in terms of clause 3.1 and 3.2 of Complaint No.

1230 of2019/723 ot 2021 C.

4.

5.

D.

6. $nffi{ Page 5 of 18 ffiHAREIA S*eunuenRlr consideration, the respondent has . suffered immense monetary hardships.

Hence, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Authority ensures that the complainant comply with the terms of the buyer's agreement and the provisions of RERA Act,2016 and Haryana Real Estate (Regulations and Development) Rules, 2017.

That the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not filed the present complaint as per the correct form ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, Z017. h*d rlain owe has r Complaint No.

1230 ot2019/723 ot 2021 the buyer's agreement.

The complainant has been himself guilty of not adhering to the payment schedule and made most ofthe payment after passing of the respective due dates.

The same is not permissible in terms of RERA Act, 2016 and in view ofthe same, the complaint merits outright dismissal. iii.

That the complaint is not maintainable and is premature since the pro,ect is a RERA registered project, having registration no.

118 of 2017 dated 28.08.20L7, an the Registration Certificate the due date of completion is l which has not arrived in the present case.

Therefo complaint merits outright dismissal. lv.

That the presen is not maintainable as the constru completed and the Occupation C 15.01.2019.

The offer the complainant on of possession 24.01.2019 with payment. h payment.

However, the complainant has not the payment of the due amount but fil the respondent.

That due to th paying the complete Page 6 of 18 HARERA ffiGURUGRAM Complaint No.

1230 ot2079/723 of 2021 vii.

It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Authority does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

7.

Copies of all 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 submission made by the parties.

E.

Jurisdiction ofthe authority submission/objection that the n the present complaint.

The objection of the respond ion of complaint on ground 8. of jurisdiction stands rejected.

The authority observes that it has territorial as well as subiect matter jurisdiction to ad)udicate the present complaint for the reasons given below.

E.l Territorialiurisdiction As per notification no.

1/92/2077-1TCP dated L4.l2.2077 issued by Town and Country Planning Department, the .iurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Autho.iV,hfrffiX@Edntire curugram 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 authority has complete territorial iurisdiction to deal with the present complaint.

E.II Subiect matter iurisdiction 9.

Section 11(4J(aJ of the Act,20L6 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

Section 11[4J(a) is reproduced as hereunder: Section 77.....(4) The promoter sholl- (o) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and fi)nctions under the prov[sions of this Act or the rules and regulations made Page 7 of 18 ffiHARERA HaJRuGRATv Complaint No.

1230 o t 2019 /7 23 of 2027 thereunder or to the allottees qs per the ogreement for sale, or to the association of allottees, as the case mqy be, till the conveyance ofall the apqrtments, plots or buildin or buildingt as the case moy be, to the ollottees, or the common areas to the ossociqtion of allottees or the competent outhoriry, qs the case moy be; Section 34-Functions of the Authoriayt 344 of the Act provides to ensure compliance of the obligations cost upon the promoters, the allottees ond the real estote agents under this Act and the rules and regulotions mode thereunder.

So, in view ofthe provisions ofthe Act quoted above, the authority has complete iurisdiction a 0".,:,:.1:,._j..n" complaint regarding non- compliance of obligations by therp_romoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by th€-adiudicating officer if pursued by the comptainant at a l""."f,uf$$g\U 11.

Further, the authority has no hitch in proceeding with the complaint and to grant a atter in view of the Newtech Promoters U.P. and Ors.

2027- of M/s Sana Realtors & others SLP (Civil) No.

73005 of 2020 decided on 72,05,2022 and wherein it has been laid down as under: "86.

From the scheme of the Act of which a detailed reference hos been made qnd taking note of power of adjudication delineated with the regulatory authority and adjudicating offcer, whatlinally culls out is thot although the Act indicates the distinct expressions like 'refund', 'interest', 'penoly' ond 'compensation', q conjoint reading of Sections 18 ond 19 clearly manifests that when it comes to refund ofthe amount ond interest on the refund amount, or directing pqyment of interest for delayed delivery ofpossession, or penalq, and interest thereon, it is the regulotory authority whichhosthe power to examine onddeterminethe outcome ofa comploint At the same time, when it comes to a question of seeking the retief of odjudging compensation ond interest thereon under Sections 12, 14, 1g and 19, the adjudicoting oftrcer exclusively has the power to determine, of re judgement and Developers 2022(1) Private RCR(C), Limited & the Page I of18 ffiHARERA # aIRTJGRAI/ Complaint No.

1230 o f 2019 17 23 of 2021.

3 of 2021. keeping in view the collective reading of Section 71read with Section 72 of the Act. if the adjudicotion under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 79 other than compensation as envisaged, if extended to the adjudicating ollicer as prayed that, in our view, may intend to expand the ombit and scope of the powers andfunctions of the adjudicating officer under Section 71 and that would be agoinst the mandote ol the Act 2016," 12.

The application for refund filed in the form CAO with the adjudicating officer and on being transferred to the authority in view of the judgement titled as M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd, Vs State of UP & Ors. fsupra.r, the issue before authority is whether the authority should proceed further without seeking fresh application in the form CRA for cases of refund along with prescribed interest in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project on failure of the promoter to give possession as per agreement for sale irrespective of the fact whether application has been made in form CAO/ CRA- It has been deliberated in the proceedings dated L0.5.2022 in CR No.

3688/2027 titled Harish Goel Versus Adani M2K Pro,ects LLP and observed that there is no material difference in the contents of the t3.

F. forms and the different headings whether it is filed before the adjudicating officer or the authority.

Hence, in view of the;aiihoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case mentioned above, the authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint seeking refund of the amount and interest on the refund amount.

Findings on the obiections raised by the respondents.

F.l Obiection regarding the complainant being investor.

The respondents has taken a stand that the complainant is the investor and not consumer, therefore, he is not entitled to the protection of the Act and entitled to file the complaint under section 31 of the Act. f the Act.

The L4, Page 9 of 18 HARERA MGURUGRAM respondent also submitted that the preamble of the Act states that the Act is enacted to protect the interest of consumers of the real estate sector.

The authority observes that the respondents is correct in stating that the Act is enacted to protect the interest of consumer of the real estate sector. lt is settled principle of interpretation that preamble is an introduction of a statute and states main aims & objects of enacting a statute but at the same time the preamble cannot be used to defeat the enacting provisions of the any aggrieved person can e, it is pertinent to note that laint against the promoter if it contravenes or violates the Act or rules or regulations made thereunder.

U terms and conditions that the complainant ofthe apartment is a buyer and 4/- to the promoter towards p At this stage, it is ttee under the Act, important to the same is reprodu "2(d) "allottee" in means the person to whom a plot, apartmen as the cqse may be, hos been allotted, l) or otherwise the person who subsequently acquiretthe $aid allotment tbrough sqle, transfer or otherwise but does trjt iilude ,a...persolt ta whom such plot, oportment or building, os the cose moy be, is given on renti' 15.

In view of above-mentioned definition of "allottee" as well as all the terms and conditions of the apartment application for allotment, it is crystal clear that the complainant is allottee as the subiect unit was allotted to him by the promoter.

The concept of investor is not defined or referred in the Act.

As per the definition given under section 2 ofthe Act, there will be "promoter" and "allottee" and there cannot be a party Complaint No.

1230 of2079/723 ot 2021 Page 10 of 18 HARERA M GURUGI?AI/ having a status of "investor".

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 29.07.2019 in appeal no.

0006000000010557 titled as M/s Srushti Sangam Developers PvL Ltd, Vs, Saruapriya Leasing (P) Lts, And Anr. , And Anr. has also held that the concept of investor is not defined or referred in the Act.

Thus, the contention ofpromoter that the allottee being an investor is not entitled to protection of this Act also stands reiected.

F.lI Obiection regarding premeliile !i!ing of complaint.

Lt is that the complaint filed is 16.

Another contention of the premature, as the proiect allottee is totally invalid as Complaint No.

1230 ot 2079 /723 of 2027 paid the amount of registered having registration number 118 of 2017,dated , and in terms ofthe registration in the table, due date comes out to be 06.09.2017, whereas the present complaint has been received on 02.04.2019.

Thus, the obiection regarding premature filing ofthe complaint stands rejected.

F.

III Obiection regarding the delay in payments.

17.

The obiection raised by the q3r.Ear{ing delay in payment by certificate, the due date ot complefion is 31.07.2021.

However, going through possession clause 3.1 of the buyer's agreement as mentioned Rs.L,73,26,204/-, i.e., 95o/o agaiist ihe:*otal sale consideration of Rs.1,18,87,200/- to the respondent.

The balance amount is payable on application of occupation certificate or the receipt of the occupation certificate.

The fact cannot be ignored that there might be certain group of allottees who defaulted in making payments.

But upon perusal of documents on record, it is observed that no default has been made by the complainant in the instant case.

Hence, the plea advanced by the respondent is rejected.

Page 11 of 18 n-fiaffi& HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

1230 ot2079/723 of 2027 G.

Findings on the relief sought by the complainant.

G.l To refund the entire amount deposited i.e., Rs.1,L3,26,2O4/- by the complainant with prescribed rate ofinterest The complainant booked a flat bearing no.

T-C/0602 on 6th floor, admeasuring super area of 1760 sq. ft. in the said project vide an allotment letter dated 10.01.2013 for a total sale consideration of RS. ion of RS.L,IA,A7 ,200 /- and the complainant has paid a sum of paid Rs.l,L3,26,20 4 / - in all.

The Section 18(1J is applicable only in the eventuality where the promoter fails to complete or unable to give possession of the unit in accordance with terms of agreement for sale or duly completed by the date specified therein.

This is an eventuality where the promoter has offered possession ofthe unit after obtaining occupation certificate and on demand of due payment at the time ofoffer ofpossession, the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project and demand return ofthe amount received by the p;omoter in respect of the unit with interest at the prescribed rate.

The due date of possession as per buyer's agreement as mentioned in the table above is 06.09.20L7 and complaint has been received on 02.04.2019 after possession of the unit was offered to him after obtaining occupation certificate by the promoter.

The OC was received on 15.01.2019 whereas, offer of possession was made on 24.0L.2019.

The allottee never earlier opted/wished to withdraw from the project even after the due date ofpossession and only when offer ofpossession was made and demand for due payment was raised, then onl, he filed a complaint before the authority.

18. t9.

20.

Page 12 of 18 HARERA ffiGURUGRAM Complaint No.

1230 o f 2079 /7 23 of 2027 21.

The right under section l8(1) /19(4) accrues to the allottees on failure ofthe promoter to complete or unable to give possession ofthe unit in accordance with the terms ofthe agreement for sale or duly completed by the date specified therein.

If allottees have not exercised the right to withdraw from the project after the due date of possession is over till the offer of possession was made to them, it impliedly means that the allottees tacitly wished to continue with the proiect.

The promoter has already invested in the project to complete it and offered possession of the allotted unit. tted unit.

Although, fol^Xil3l," handing over the unit by due date in accordance with the ,lglTr "f the agreement for sale, rhe consequences provided in proviso to section 18[1J will come in force as the promoter has to pay interest at the prescribed rate of every month ofdelay tillthe handing over ofpossession and allottee's interest forthe money they have paid to the promoter is protected accordingly and the same was upheld by in the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited Vs State of U,P, ond Ors, (supra) reiterated in case of M/s Sana Realtors Private Limited & other Vs Union of lndia & others SLp (Civil) No.

73005 of 2020 decided on 12.05.2022; that: - 25.

The unquolified right of the dllottees to seek refund referred lJnder Section 1B(1)(o) ond Section 19(4) of the Act is not dependent on ony contingencies or stipulqtions thereof. lt oppears thqt the legislature has consciously provided this right of refund on demand as an unconditional absolute rightto the allottees, if the promoter fails to give possession of the apartment, plot or building within the time stipuloted under the terms of the agreement regordless of unforeseen events or stoy orders of the Court/Tribunal, which is in either way not attributable to the qllottees/home buyer, the promoter is under on obligotion to refund the amount on demond with interest at the rate prescribed by the State Government including compensation in themanner provided under the Act with the proviso that if the allottees does not wish to withdraw from the Page 13 of18 HARERA ffiGURUGRAM Complaint No.

1230 ot 20791723 ot 2021 project, he shall be entitled for interest for the period of delay till honding over possession at the rote prescribed.

22.

The promoter is responsible for all obligations, responsibilities, and functions under the provisions of the Act of 2016, or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per agreement for eement for sale.

This judgement of the Supreme Court of India recognized unqualified right of the allottees and liability of the promoter in case of failure to complete or unable. to give possession of the unit in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or duly completed by the date specified therein.

But the complainant-allottee failed to exercise his right although it is unqualified one.

Complainant has to demand and make his intentions clear that he wishes to withdraw from the project.

Rather tacitly wished to continue with the proiect and thus made himself entitled to receive interest for every month of delay till . '. i: handing over of possession.

It is observed by the authority that the allottee invest in the project for obtaining the allotted unit and on delay in completion ofthe project never wished to withdraw from the project and when unit is ready for possession, such withdrawal on considerations other than delay such as reduction in the market value of the property and investment purely on speculative basis will not be in the spirit of the section 18 which protects the right of the allottees in case of failure ofpromoter to give possession by due date either by way ofrefund if opted by the allottees or by way ofdelay possession charges at prescribed rate ofinterest for every month of delay.

23. [n case allottees wish to withdraw from the project, the promoter is liable on demand to the allottees return of the amount received by the promoter with interest at the prescribed rate if promoter fails to Page 14 oflB HARERA GURUGRAM Complaint No.

1230 of2Ol9/723 of 2021 complete orunable to give possession ofthe unit in accordance with the terms ofthe agreement for sale.

The words liable on demand need to be understood in the sense that allottees has to make intentions clear to withdraw from the proiect and a positive action on their part to demand return of the amount with prescribed rate of interest if they have not made any such demand prior to rece or to receiving occupation certificate and unit is ready then impliedly agreed to continue with the prorect i.e. they do not intend to withdraw from the project and this proviso to sec 18(1] automatically comes into op:lL,l..,ol..:rd allottees shall be paid by the promoter interest at the prescribed rate for every month of delay.

This view is supported by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case oflreo Gra ce Realtech PvL Ltd, v/s Abhishek Khanna and Ors, ( Civil appeal no, 5785 of 2019) wherein the Hon'ble Apex court took a view that those allottees are obligated to take the possession of the apartments since the construction was completed and possession was offered after issuance of occupation certificate. and also in consonance with the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd Versus State of U,P, and Ors (Supra).

24.

The unit of the complainant was booked vide allotment letter dated 10.01.2013.

The buyer's agreement was executed betlveen the parties on 02.04.2013.

There is a delay in handing over the possession as due date of possession was 05.09.2017 whereas the offer of possession was made on 24.01.2019 and thus, becomes a case to grant delay possession charges.

The authority has observed that interest of every month of delay at the prescribed rate of interest be granted to the complainant- allottee.

But now the peculiar situation is that the complainant wants to lrlTtt Page 15 of 18 HARERA ffiGURUGRAI/ Complaint No.

1230 of 2079 /723 of 2027 surrender the unit and want refund.

Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, that the respondent builder has already offered the possession of the allotted unit after obtaining occupation certificate from the competent authority, and judgment of lreo Grace Realtech Pvt Ltd. v/s Abhishek Khonna and Ors.

Civil appeal no.

5785 of 2079 decided on 77. ded on 77.07,202, it is concluded that if the complainant-allottee still wants to withdraw from the project, the paid-up amount shall be refunded after deduction as prescribed under the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Gurugram (FoLfeiture of earnest money by the builderJ Regulations, 2018, whi-ch.provides as under: - "5.

AMOaINT OF EARNEST I ONEY ) r,. . ;1 Scenqrio prior to the Reol Estqte (Regulationi inabevitopmentl Act,2016was dilferent.

Frouds were caffied out without any feor qstherewas no law for the some but now, in view of the above facts and taking into considerotion the judgements of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, the authority is_ oI the view that the forkiture amount of the earnest money shqll not exceed more than 10% of the consideration amount of the reql estote i.e, oportment/plot/building as the case may be in all coses where the concellotion of the Jlot/unit/plot is made by the builder in q uniloterol monner or the buyer intends to withdraw from the project and any ogreement contoining any clouse contrary to the qforesaid regulotions sholl be void ond not binding on the buyer" 25.

Further, Clause 12.6 of the buyer's agreement also talks about the deduction of 10% ofthe basic sale price ofthe dwelling unit in case of withdrawal of the allotment.

Clause 12.6 of the said buyer's agreement reiterated as under: - 12.6 "The Purchqsers has fully understood and agreed that in case the Purchoser(s) withdrows or surrender his allotment,Ior any reason whaBoever at any point oftime,then the Seller at its sole discretion moy cancel/ terminate the booking/ allotment Agreement and shall forfeit the amounts paid deposited up-to the Earnest Money, along with other dues of non-refundable nature.

No seporate notice shall be given in this regard." Page 15 of 18 ffiHARERA ffi arnLrennH,r Complaint No.

1230 ot2079/723 of 2021 26. f 2021 26.

Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid factual and legal provisions, the respondent is directed to refund the paid-up amount of Rs.L,13,26,204 /- after deducting 10% ofthe basic sale consideration of Rs.1,02,96,000/- being earnest money along with an interest @ 10.70% p.a. (the State Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) applicable as on date +2%) as prescribed under rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 201.7 on the refundable amount, from the date of filing of this complaint i.e., 02.04.2019 till actual refund of the amount within the timelines provided in rule L6 ofthe Haryana Rules 2017 ibid.

27.

Further, the complainant contended that the respondent has made significant alterations in the building plans of the project without having consent from the complainant-allottee.

However, as per record available on the official website of Town & Country Planning, Haryana, it has duly approved the revised building plan of said licence vide its letter dated 07.1,0.2076, as no objection were received in respect of amendments made in the building plans.

Hence, the contention of complainant stands rejected.

Dft H.

Directions of tn&rlI6rtt\ Ir I\.{:t zB.

Hence, the authogrt {t{rg{*qf$ issues the folowins directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon t}le promoter as per the function entrusted to the authority under section 34(f): i.

The respondent/builder is directed to refund the paid-up amount of Rs.1.,13,26,20 4 /- aft.er deducting 100/o of the basic sale consideration of Rs.1,02,96,000/- being earnest money along with Page 17 oflB HARERA B* GURUGRAM Complaint No.

1230 of 2079 /723 ot 2027 an interest @ 10.70% p.a. on the refundable amount, from t}le date offiling ofthis complaint i.e.,02.04.2019 till its realization. ii.

A period of 90 days is given to the respondent to comply with the directions given in this order and failing which legal consequences would follow.

29. ollow.

29.

Complaint stands disposed of.

30.

File be consigned to the registry. \,1-/ fviiay Kumar coyal) Member Haryana Real Estate Dated: L2.04.2023 HARERA GURUGRAM ru W Page 18 oflB