PUSHPA LATA SHARMA AND ANR vs SEPSET PROPERTIES PVT.LTD.

HARERA ffiGURUGRAM BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGUTATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM ORDER 1.

The present complaint dated 18.03.2019 has been filed by the complainant/allottees under section 31 of the Real Estate fRegulation and DevelopmentJ Act,2016 (in short, the Act) read with rule Zg ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2Ol7 (in short, the Rules] for violation of section 11(4)(a) of the Act wherein it Complaint no.

1018 of 2019 /602 of 202t Order pronounced on: L2.O4.2023 Complainants Respondent Member Complainants Respondent 1.

Pushpa Lata Sharma, W/o Anil Sharma, 2.

Anil Sharma, S/o Ram Dular, both R/o; - 88, Gangotri Apartment, DDA PKT-1, Sector-12, Dwarka, Delhi-110078.

Versu s M/s Sepset Properties private Limited.

Regd.

Office at: - 11rh Floor, paras Twin Towers, Tower-B, Sec-54, Golf Course Road, Gurugram, Haryana.

Also At: - Room no.

205, Welcome plaza, S-551 School, Block- , Shakkarpur, Delhi-110092.

CORAM: Shri Ashok Sangwan APPEARANCE: Sh.

Mukul Kumar Sanwariya (Advocate) Sh.

Akshay Sharma [AdvocateJ Page 1 of 17 Complaint No.

101.8 of 2\tg /602/2021 HARERA ffiGURUGRAM is inter alia 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 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: Complaint No.

10'lB of 2079 /602/2027 A.

2. s.N.

Particulars Details 1.

Name ofthe proiect Paras Dew', sector-106, Gurugram 2.

Nature of proiect Residential group housins proiect RERA registered/not registered Registered 118 0f 2 017 dated 28.08.2017 4.

DTPC License no.

61. of 2012 dated 13.06.2012 Validity status 1,2.06. us 1,2.06.2020 Name of licensee Sepset Properties Licensed area 13.76 Acre 5.

Unit no.

21.02, 21st floor, Tower-B [As per page 32 of complaint] 6.

Unit measuring 1760 sq. ft. [As per page 32 of complaintl 7.

Date of execution of Flat buyer's agreement 02.04.2073 Ipage 29 of complaint] 8.

Allotment Letter 10.01.2013 (page 27 ofcomplaint) 9.

Possession clause 3.

Possession 3.1 Subject to Clause 1.0 herein or any other circumstances not anticipated and beyond the reasonable control of the Seller and any restraints restrictions from any courts/ authorities and subject to the Purchaser(s) having complied with all the terms and conditions of this Agreement and not beinq in default PaEe 2 of 17 * ffiIAREBA #*eunuennl,l Complaint No.

1018 ot 2019 /602/2021 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.

10.

Due date of possession 06.09.2077 (calculated from the date of environmental clearance) [Grace period is allowed being unqualified ) 11.

Total sale consideration Rs.L,04,26,400 /- [as per S0A dated 26.10.2021 on page 51 of reply'l 12.

Total amount paid by the complainant Rs.1,01,28,165/- (as per S0A dated 26.10.2021 on page 53 of reply) 13.

Occupation certificate dated 15.01.2 019 74.

Offer of possession 24.0L.20t9 (page 73 ofreply ) B.

Facts ofthe complaint: 3.

The complainants have made the following submissions: - I.

That the project named "PARAS DEWS" was being developed by respondent on a parcel of land admeasuring 13. suring 13.762 acres situated at Sector 106, at Village- Daultabad, Tehsil & District Gurgao" \ Page 3 of17 HARERA MGURUGRAII II.

That on relying upon the facts and assurances of timely competition of project by the respondent's representatives, the complainants booked a flat bearing no.

T -B /2102 on 21.t floor, admeasuring super area of 1760 sq. ft. vide an allotment letter dated 10.01.2013 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,04,26,400/- and paid a sum of paid Rs.1,01,28,165/- in all.

Thereafter, buyer's agreement was executed on 02 .04 .2013 .

Ill.

That as per clause 3.1 ofthe buyer's agreement, the projectwas to be completed within 42 months with.6 months of grace period from the execution of the said agreement.

So, the stipulated date for handing over possession of the said uRit was 06.09.2077 but the same was offered on 24.01.2019.

IV.

That the complainants inquired about the status of construction and other development work to be carried out by the respondent but it never shared any such information in gross violation of Sec 19[2) of RERA, Act, 2016.

V.

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

Vl.

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

VII.

That the complainants suffered loss or damages due to false and incorrect statement or commitment made by the respondent for delivering the possession offlat within stipulated time.

Thus, they are entitled to withdraw from the respondent's prorect to get the refund along with in terms Sec 18(1) of the REM, Act, 2016.

Complaint No.

1018 ot 2019 /602/2021 Page 4 of 17 k I ffiHARERA #-G r/ Complaint No.

1018 ot 2019 /602/2027 VIII.

2027 VIII.

That the respondent not only failed to construct the unit within the stipulated timeline as per BBA but also made major alterations in the layout plan without even having consent from them.

C.

Relief sought by the complainant: 4.

The complainants have sought following relief(sJ: [.

To refund the entire paid-up amount of Rs.1,01,28,165/- (Rupees One Crore One Lac Twenty-Eight Thousand One Hundred and Sixty- Five onlyJ along with prescribed rate of interest.

5.

On the date of hearing, the authority explained to the respondent/promoter about the contraventions as alleged to have been committed in relation to section 11(al (a) ofthe Act to plead guilty or not to plead guilty, D 6. .

Reply by the respondent/builder.

The respondent contested the complaint by filing reply dated 21.10.2020 on the following grounds: - i.

That the complainants are not a genuine flat purchaser or consumer and purchased the said flat for commercial and investment purposes for which the jurisdiction ofthis Hon'ble Authority cannot be invoked.

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 complainants in terms ofclause 3.1 and 3.2 of the buyer's agreement.

The complainants have been themselves guilty of not adhering to the payment schedule and made most of the payments after passing of the respective due dates.

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

Page 5 of 17 HARERA ffiGUI?UGRAM tv.

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

Ll9 of 2017 dated 28.08.2017.

In terms ofthe Registration Certificate, the due date ofcompletion is 31.07.2021 which has not arrived in the present case.

Therefore, the complaint merits outright dismissal. dismissal.

That the complaint is infructuous and not maintainable as the construction of Tower-C has already been completed and the Occupation Certificate has also been received on 15.01.2019.

The offer of possession has already been issued to the complainants on 24.07.20L9 with the demand for the remaining payment.

However, they not only failed to make the payment of the due amount but filed the present complaint to harass the respondent.

That due to the failure of the complainants in paying the complete consideration, the respondent suffered immense monetary hardships.

Hence, it is most humbly prayed that this Authority ensures that they comply with the terms ofthe buyer's agreement and the provisions of RERA Act, 2016 and Haryana Real Estate (Regulations and Development) Rules, 20L7. vi.

That the complaint is not maintainable as the complainants have not filed the same as per the correct form of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and DevelopmentJ Rules, 2017. vii.

All other averments made in the complaint are denied in toto.

7.

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 those undisputed documents and submission made by the parties.

1018 ot 2079 /60212021 llr.

PaEe 6 of 17A.

HARERA #-GURUGRAI/ Jurisdiction of the authority The respondent raised a preliminary submission/objection that the authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

The obiection of the respondent regarding rejection of complaint on ground of jurisdiction stands rejected.

The authority observes that it has territorial as well as subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint for the reasons given below.

E.I Territorialiurisdiction As per notification no.

7/92/20L7-1TCP dated 1,4.12. ed 1,4.12.2077 issued by I Town and 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 authority has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with the pr€sent complaint.

E.II Subiect matter iurisdiction Section 11(4)(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- (q) be responsiblelor all obligations, responsibilities ond functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules ond regulotions made thereunder or to the allottees as per the ogreement for sale, or to the association of allottees, as the case may be, till the conveyance ofoll the oportments, plots or buildings, as the case may be, to the ollottees, or the common areas to the ossociotion of allottees or the competent authority, os the cose moy be; Section 34-Functions of the Authority: i4A of the Act provides to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estote agents under this Act ond the rules and regulations made thereunder.

7078 of 2019 /602/2021 E.

9. k PaEe 7 of 17 HARERA MGURUGRAII Complaint No.

7D7B of 201,9 /602/2027 10.

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 leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer if pursued by the 11. complainants at a later stage.

Further, the authority has no hitch in proceeding with the complaint and to grant a relief of refund in the present matter in view of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court rn Newtech Promoters ond Developers Private Limite ate Limited Vs Stote of 11.P, and Ors.

2027- 2022(7) RCR(C), 357 and reiterated in case of M/s Sana Realtors Private Limited & other Vs Union of lndia & others SLP (Civil) No.

73005 oI 2020 declded on 72,05.2022 and wherein it has been laid down as under: "86.

From the scheme of the Act of which a detqiled rekrence hos been made ond taking note of power of adjudicotion delineated t ith the regulatory authority and adjudicating ofrcer, whatfinally culls out is that although the Act indicates the distinct expressions like 'refund', 'interest', 'penalty' and 'compensqtion', a 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 poyment ofinterest t'or deloyed delivery of possession, or penaly and interest thereon, it is the regulatory outhoriql which hos the power to exomine and determine the outcomeofa complaint At the same time, when it comes to a question of seeking the relief of adjudging compensation and interest thereon under Sections 12, 14, 1B and 19, the adjudicoting oficer exclusively hos the power to determine, keeping in view the collective reading olSection 71 read with Section 72 of the Act if the adjudicotion under Sections 12, 14, 1B and 19 other thon compensotion as envisoged, if extended to the odjudicating olfcer as proyed that, in our view, may intend to expond the ambit ond scope of the powers and functions of the odjudicating officer under Section 71 ond that would be against the mondate of the Act 2016," The application for refund filed in the form CAO with the adjudicating officer and on being transferred to the authority in view of the iudgement titled as IvI/s Newtech Promoters and Developers pvt Ltd, ^_ 1-2.

Page B of 17 I HARERA W-GURUGRAI/ 13.

1018 of 2019 /602/2027 F.

74.

027 F.

Vs State of UP & Ors, (supra), the issue before authority is whether it should proceed further without seeking fresh application in the form CRA for cases of refund along with prescribed interest in case the allottees wish to withdraw from the proiect 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 10.5.2022 in CR No.

3688/2027 titled Harish Goel Versus Adani MZK Projects LLP and observed that there is no material difference in the contents of the forms and the different headings whether it is filed before the adjudicating officer or the authority.

Hence, in view of the authoritative 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 amounL Findings on the obiections raised by the respondent.

F,l Oblection regarding the complainants being investor.

The respondent has taken a stand that the complainants are investor and not consumer.

Therefore, they are not entitled to the protection of the Actand to file the complaint under section 3l oftheAct.

The respondent also submitted that the preamble ofthe Act states that the Act is enacted to protect the interest of consumers of the real estate sector.

The authority observes that the respondent is correct in stating that the Act is enacted to protect the interest of the consumers of the real estate sector.

It is settled principle of interpretation that the preamble is an introduction of a statute and states main aims & obiects of enacting a statute but at the same time, the preamble cannot be used to defeat thel -' 1\ Page 9 of 17 HARERA P* GURUGRAM Complaint No.

1018 of 2079 / 602 /202t enacting provisions of the Act. f the Act.

Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that any aggrieved person can file a complaint against the promoter if it contravenes or violates any provisions oftheAct or rules or regulations made thereunder.

Upon careful perusal of all the terms and conditions ofthe apartment buyer's agreement, itis revealed thatthe complainants are buyer and paid total price of Rs.1,01,28,165/- to the promoter towards purchase of an apartment in its project.

At this stage, it is important to stress upon the definition of term allottee under the Act, the same is reproduced below for ready reference: "2(d) "allottee" in relotion to a rml estate project meqns the person to whom a plot, apartment or building, qs the case may be, hqs been allotted, sold (whether as freehold or leasehold) or otherwise trqnsferred b! the promoter, and includes the person who subsequently acquires the said allotment through sole, tronsfer or otherwise but does not include o person to whom such plot, apartment or building, as the case moy be, is glven on renti' 15. ln 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 complainants are allottees as the subject unit was allotted to them by the promoter.

The concept ofinvestor is not defined or referred in the AcL As per the definition given under section 2 of the Act, there will be "promoter" and "allottee" and there cannot be a party having a status of "investor".

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in its order dated Z9.O7.ZOL9 in appeal no.

000600000001.0557 titled as M/s Srushti Sangam Developers pvL Ltd.

Vs, Sarvapriya Leasing (p) Lts, And Anr. has also held that the concept of investor is not defined or referred in the AcL Thus, the contention of promoter that the allottees being an investor are not entitled to protection of this Act also stands rejected. + Page 10 of 17 HARERA MGURUGRAI/ Complaint No. plaint No.

1078 of 2079 / 602 / 2027 F.II Obiection regarding premature filing of complaint.

16.

Another contention of the respondent is that the complaint filed is premature, as the project is a REM registered having registration number 118 of 2017 d,ated 29.08.2017 and in terms ofthe registration certificate, the due date of completion is 37.07.2021.

However after going through possession clause 3.1. of the buyer,s agreement as mentioned in the table the due date comes out to be 06.09.2017 and whereas the present complaint has been received on 1g.03.2019.

Thus, the objection regarding premature filing of the complaint stands rejected.

F.

III Obiection regarding the delay in payments.

17.

The objection raised by the respondent regarding delay in payments by the allottees is totally invalid as they have already paid the amount of Rs.1.,0L,28,165 /-, i.e., more than 95% against the total sale consideration of Rs.1,04,26,400/- to it.

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

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

Hence, the plea advanced by the respondent is rejected.

G.

Findings on the reliefsought by the complainant.

G.l To refund the entire amount deposited i.e., Rs.1,01,28,165/- by the complainants with prescribed rate of interesL 18.

The complainants booked a flat bearing no- T-B/2102 on 21.r floor, admeasuring super area of 1760 sq. ft. vide an allotment Ietter dated 10.01.2013 for a total sale considerarion of Rs.1,04,26,400/_ and paid a sum of paid Rs.1,01,28,165/- in all.

Thereafter, buyer,s agreement was executed on 02.04.2013.

Page 11 of 17 HARERA MGURUGRAI/ 19.

The Section 18(1) 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. d therein.

This is a case where the promoter has offered possession of the unit after obtaining occupation certificate and on demand of due payment at the time of offer of possession, the allottees wish to withdraw from the project and demand return of the amount received by it in respect ofthe unit with interest at the prescribed rate.

The due date of possession as per buyer,s agreement as mentioned in the table above is 06.09.2017 and complaint was filed on 1g.03.2019 after possession of the unit was offered to them after obtaining occupation certificate by the promoter.

The OC was received on 15.01..2019 and whereas the offer of possession was made on 24.01.2079.The allottees never earlier opted/wished to withdraw tiom the proiect even after the due date ofpossession and only when offer of possession was made and demand for due payment was raised, then only, they filed a complaint before the authority.

21.

The right under section lB(1) /19(4) accrues to the allottees on failure of the promoter to complete or unable to give possession of the 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 proiect to complete it and offered possession of the allotted unit.

Although, for delay in handing over the unit by due date in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale, the 20.

PaEe 12 of 77k HARERA ffiGURUGRAM Complaint No.

1018 of 2079 /602/2027 date in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale, the consequences provided in proviso to section 18(1) will come in force as the promoter has to pay interest at the prescribed rate of every month ofdelaytillthe handing over ofpossession and allottees interest for the money the money they have paid to the promoter is protected accordingly and the same was upheld by in the judgement ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of .tveu/tech Promoters and Developers Private Limited Vs State of U,P, and Ors. (supra) reiterated in case of M/s Sana Realtors Private Limited & other Vs llnion of India & others SLP (Civil) No.

73005 of2020 decided on 12.05.2022; that: - 25.

The unqualified right of the allottees to seek refund referred lJnder Section 18(1)(0) ond Section 19(4) of the Act is not dependent on any contingencies or stipulations thereof. lt appeors that the legislature has consciously provided this right of refund on demond as an unconditional absolute rightto the allottees, if the promoterfoils to give possession ofthe opartment plot or building within the time stipulated under the terms of the ogreement regardless of unforeseen events or stay orders ol the Court/Tribunal, which is in either way not ottributoble to the allottees/home buyer, the promoter is under qn obligqtion to refund the omount on demand with interest at the rste prescribed by the State Government including compensation in the manner provided under the Act with the proviso that iI the ollottees does not wish to withdraw from the project, he sholl be entitled for interest for the period of delay till honding over possession at the rate prescribed.

22.

The promoter is responsible for all obligations, responsibilities, and functions under the provisions of the Act of 2076, or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per agreement for sale.

This judgement of the Supreme Court of tndia recognized unqualified right ofthe allottees and liability ofthe 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/allottees failed to exercise the right although it is unqualified one. ified one.

The complainants havq _ T Page 13 of 17 HARERA W*GURUGRAM from the project.

Rather, tacitly wished to continue with the project and thus made themselves entitled to receive interest for every month of delay till handing over ofpossession.

It is observed bythe authority that the allottees invest in the project for obtaining the allotted unit and on delay in completion of the project and when the 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 j.g which protects the right of the allottees in case of failure of promoter to give possession by due date either by way ofrefund ifopted by the allottees or by way of delay possession charges at prescribed rate of interest for every month of delay.

23.

This view is supported by the judgement of Hon,ble Supreme Court of India in case oflreo Grace 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 complainants was booked vide allotment letter dated 10.01.2013.

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

There is a delay in handing over the possession as due date ofpossession was 05.09.2017 whereas the offer ofpossession was made on24.01.2019 and thus, becomes a case to grant delay possession ,Ar Complaint No.

1018 ot 2019 / 602 /2021 to demand and make their intention clear that they wish to withdraw Page 14 of 17 HARERA M"GURUGRAI/ charges. / charges.

The authority observes that interest ofevery month ofdelay at the prescribed rate of interest be granted to the complainant/allottees.

But now, the peculiar situation is that the complainants want to 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 PvL Ltd. v/s Abhishek Khanno ond Ors.

Civil appeal no.

STIS of 2019 decided on 77,01,202, it is concluded rhat if rhe complainant/allottees still want to withdraw from the project, the paid-up amount shall be refunded after deductions as prescribed under the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Gurugram (Forfeiture of earnest money by the builder) Regulations, 201g, which provides as under: _ ,,5.

AMOUNT OF EARNEST MONEY Scenario pior to the Reql Estate (Regulotions ond Development) Act,2016wos different Frauds were carried ou.t without any 1"o, o, ,il"iilr'ro'ii* 1o, tn" same but now, in view of the above foc* ani taking ii,i" ,rilii"irtw n" j udgements of H on'ble Nationot Consime, oirprt", i"ar':si;ol-co,i.iior rna the -Hon'bte supreme court of tndia, the ,irniti- t, i i""ii"*'inr, ,n" forkiture omount of the eornist money sholl not exieed iore tnoi )igo of tn" considerqtion amount of the reol esiote i.". "pouriir/piirTtiiiiiri' ^ *" case may be in all caseswhere the cancello_tion ofthe flalt)unijpit ii".oa" ry the buitder in a unitoterat manner or the buye;in@;ds;; *iiiaiii io. tn" project and any ogreement contoining ony clouse *rr*i ,o ri"''o'nn*,a regulotions shall be void and not bindiig oi,n" tir -.;- - ' * '"" "' 25.

Further, Clause 12.6 of the buy:er,s a.J"."nt also talks about the deduction of 100lo of the basic sale price of the dwelling unit in case of withdrawal of the allotment.

Clause 12.6 of the said buyer,s agreement reiterated as under: - 12. der: - 12.6 "The purchasers hos fully understood ond agreed that in cose the purchoser(s) withdraws or surrender his aUorr"rr,iri iry i"or"n whotsoever at qny point of time, then the Seller ot its sol" airrr"iion .'oyionl"l/ terminate ^( page 15 of 17 Complaint No.

1018 o f 2Ot9 / 602 /2021 HARERA ffiGURUGRAM the book.ing/ qllotment Agreement and sholl forfeit the amounts paid deposited up-to the Eornest Money, along with orher dues of non-riyundoble noture.

No separate notice sholl be given in Lhis regard., Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid factual aid legal provisions, the respondent is directed to refund the pald_up amount of Rs.1,01,28,165/- after deducting 10%o ofthe basic sale consideration of Rs.92,40,000/- being earnest money along with an interest @ lO.70o/o p.a. [the State Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) applicable as on date +2%J as prescribed under rule 15 ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, ZOLT on the refundable amoun! from the date of filing of this complaint i.e., 18.03.2019 till actual refund of the amount within the timelines provided in rule 16 ofthe Haryana Rules 2017 ibid.

Further, the complainant contended that the respondent has made significant alterations in the building plans of the proiect without having their consent.

However, as per record available on the official website ofTown & Country plannin& Haryana, it has duly approved the revised building plan ofsaid licence vide its letter dated 07.10.2016, as no objection were received in respect of amendments made in the building plans.

Hence, the contention ofcomplainants stands rejected.

Directions of the authority 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(0: i.

The respondent/builder is directed to refund the paid_up amount of Rs. unt of Rs.1,01,28,165/- after deducting 100/0 of the basic sale consideration of Rs.92,40,000/- being earnest money along with 26.

27.

H.

Page 16 of 17&- j complaint No . nn or zots loozlzwl] ffiHARER^ H eunuennlrr an interest @ 10.70% p.a. on the refundable amount, from the date of filing ofthis complaint i.e., 1g.03.2019 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.

Complaint stands disposed of.

30.

File be consigned to the regisrry.

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram Dated: 12.04.2023 \t HA Gl ri, PaEe 17 of t7 I Complainr No. tol9 ot Zotg /602/2021 | -