PRAVIN GOEL vs VATIKA LIMITED

HAREt?S, W-GURUGRAM Conrplaint N o.

534-2022 BEFORE RAIENDER KUMAR, ADIUDICATING OFFICER, HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY GURUGRAM Complaint no.

Date of decision : 534 of2o22 : 07.06.2023 Complainant Respondent .h $.. t: Versus M/S.

Vatika Ltd.

Registered office at; Plot No.

6,21-A, 6rH Floor, Devika Tovver 7', Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

Corporate office at: Vatiker Triangle, 4th Floor, Shushant Lok Phase-1, Block-A M ehrauli-Gurugram Iload, Grlrugram, Haryana-122002.

APPEARANCE: For Complainant: For Respondent: Mr, Parvin Goel (one of complainants) Mr.

Pankaj Chandola Advocate {u,-.

A+ Page 1 of8 ORDER ffiHARER,*q fficl;RUcRAM published by the respondent in newspapers and as per the . ', '' i- 'i- '.

Gurugram, Haryana beinlg d ,/': rlr!. - _.. 'eveloped by respondent for a total ' ;, sale consideration of Rs.

59,67,840/- (Rupees Fifty-Nine Lakh Sixty-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty- Four only). .i ,i l, That, relying upon the Respondent's representation and believing those to be true, they paid Rs.

36,55,688/- (Rupees Thirty-Six Lakhs Fifty'Five Thousand Six-Hundred and Eighry- Eight only) at the first ihstance.

As per the Clause-10 of the Builder Buyer's Agreernerit (BBA.J ,. dated 20.07.20L0, the possession of the plot was to be delivered within 36 months from the date of execution of the BBA.

They (ComplainantsJ received a letter dated tL.06.2013 from the respondent regarding the re-allotment of the plot booked by them and subsequently, on 18.06.201.3, plot No.

3L Street No.

R-6.1 Sector-85, Gurugrarrl rl€?suring240 sq. yartls was re-allotted to tlrenr.

An acldendum to the BBA was executed on 08.07.2013 betr.veen the parties.

Leaving aside the modified terms mentioned within it, all the other terms and conditions (,\ page} of B *kn L.

Conrplaint N o.

534-2022 This is a complaint filed by Mr.

Parvin Goel and Mrs. l and Mrs.

Meenu Goel (also called as buyers) under section 31 of The Real Estate [Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 [in short, the Act of 2016) read with rule 29 of The Haryana Real Estate [Regulation and Development) Rules, 2077 [in short, the Rules) against respondent/developer.

According to complainants, after going through advertisement 2.

3.

4.

HARER,*, *,.* GURUGI?AIII including the posSesSrolr daiie (20.06.2013) of the BBA remained unaltered and unaff'ected.

That, even as per terms of re-allocation of the plot, the possession was uot delivered to the Complainants/Allottees.

That, vide e-mail dated 1 1.03.2017, the respondent/developer informed them that tlte plot ha9 to be reallocated, again due to reasons beyoncl the contrgl of ic (developer).

That when despite their repeated requests, the respondent did not deliver possessiori,-oJ:.the plot, finding no other option, ... and being aggrieved by the unfair trade practice of the respondent, they filed z1:iemnlaint before The Real Estate Regulatory Authoiity, Guilig.im vide complaint No.

2252 of 20t9 and the same was decided to vide Order dated 03.11.2020.

The respondent rvas directed to pay interest at the prescribed: rate i.e 93Oo/0, per ah@ for every month of delay on the amount paid by them (complainants) from the due date of possession i.e 20:0'/.2073 till the date of the actual offer of possession, alonfi with a grace period of 6 months.

The arrears of interest accrued till date of decision were to be paid within 90 days from the date of order and thereafter monthly payment of interest till the offer of possession was be paid on or before 1Oth of each subsequent month.

That, despite repeated requests made by Complainants, the respondent did not deliver possession of the plot, due to which they (complainants/allottees) went through lot of mental, physical, and financial agony and harassment. arassment.

Contending that the Respondent has acted in a very deficient (defiant), unfair, wrongful, and fraudulent manner, by not \^$N page 3 of B &, Complaint No.534-2022 5.

6.

7.

8.

HARERE. ffiGUIlUGRAM delivering the said Plot witirin tlre timelines agreed in the BBA the complainants by filing thc complaint in hands, have sought following reliefs:- (i) Compensation of Rs.

30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) on account of physical harassment, mental agony, monetary loss, and suffering because of the respondent's act. (ii) (ii i) An amount of Rs,.1,00,000/- as cost of the present Any other or direction, which this Officer may deem fit and proper, conLsidering the facts and circumstances of Complaint No.534-2022 9. the present cornplaint.

The respondent conl"ested the complaint by filing reply.

It is averred that the present complaint has been filed by Mr.

Pravin Goel alonS'witholt,,lnrafin8 Mr.s.

Meenu Goel !.o- allotteeJ a party=in "the $.f0,f a B'for the complaint.

The .:.::. complaint is sigled,bf',Mr.

P$ftin ,9o.l,,.orly and thus, in il 1 't , absence of the co-allottee.a$ aiParty itl thEpresent complaint, no relief can be granted in favour of Mr.

Pravin Goel along, as that will hamper the'ffihts of Mrs.

Meenu Goel, in the plot.

Further, in absence of att affidavit of co-allottee, no relief can be granted in favor of the complainant (Pravin Goel) for the entire plot.

In light of this fact, present complaint is not maintainable.

10.

The Respondent further contended that the project was hindered due to many reasons beyond its control such as laying of the GAIL pipeline, Ioss of land in the ROU alignment )4A Page4ofs Yw HARTRE ffiGURUGRAM of GAIL corridor, acquisition of sector road land parcels in the township, acquisition of sector roads by governmental orders.

Development of the project was also hampered by the ban invoked by the National Green Tribunal, and lockdown on account of covid-L9 pandemic.

11. demic.

11.

The respondent pointed out that the Hon'ble authority vide order dated 27.1,2.2020 had directed it frespondent) to handover the possession of,t{rre plot in question along with interest on delayed possg; gn at the rate of 9.30o/o p.a. from 20.07.2013, till the actuaffie -of the offer of possession.

Same [respondent) had to pdy,,.3n amount of Rs.

25,49,837/- .- +' [Rupees Twenty,'Fi". ,kXE]r Foity-Nine Thousand Eight- Hundred Thiil#:5gven Only) to the complainants, as delay possession interest, for the delay so caused in handing over the possession of the said plot.

Delay possession charges granted by the authority itself amounts, to compensation, which the complainants hhVe'dlieady been granted.

72.That, due to circumstanles beyond the control of the respondent, it is not in a position to offer possession of the said plot but is ready to refund the amount paid by tlte complainants along with the interest.

13.

I heard complainant in person and counsel for respondent.

So far as contention of the respondent that the complaint should be dismissed on the ground of the non-inclusion of Mrs.

Meenu Goel (co-allottee) as a party in the complaint is concerned, it is apparent that in form-"CAO" under the rule 29(1) of Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 20t7, both Mr.

Pravin Goel and Mrs.

Me,enu Goel have olu!--+age 5 of B Ar? r Complaint No.534-2022 ffiHARERA ffieunuennrrr Conrplaint No.

534-2022 been shown as complainants.

Relief is claimed in favour of both of allottees.

Even if complaint is signed by only one of allottees, affidavit in support of complaint has also been signed by one of allottees i.e lvlr.

Pravin Goel, the latter is stated to be husband of Meenu Goel, having no adverse interest.

It appears merely a mistake, not to get signature of both.

If complaint in hands is dismissed on this ground, same may cause injustice to lorynlainant. ynlainant. [t is well settled that a parry should not trUnl,,,,,lnjustice merely due to some negligence of mistake.

L4. lt is not denied that, as p,pl Clause-l0 of the BBA, possession ll: "" 1l 1'''' of subject plot wiC'to bU'{9fi;.ii.h' witirin 36 months from the [.ir..-. ....

Joj" date of execution of the,paid agreement i.e.

20.07.2013. : i' ' '' t:t' ': Admittedly, the respoudeht tris failbd to deliver possession of said plot of land qot gnly up to thil date rather till now.

All : 't this has resulted i1_ arixilW,rhenlal:tig,rmo, harassment, and agony of trial forthe comfilelh , , . ' 15.

Explanation about,.delay in handing over possession of subject unit, .as'given b,f,rt_!-e respondent is that due to unforeseen cause (well described,abo,ve) possession could not be given to the complainant, does not hold ground.

It has been more than dozen of years since the signing of the BBA, between the parties that the respondent is unable to fulfil the promises made by it in this regard.

A buyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely for his/her dream house, purchased by secrifying life savings.

L6.

Admittedly relief of delayed possession charges has already been granted by the authority to complainants vide order \ud Paee 6 ofg -oo 't HARTR,q ffiGURUGRAM dated 03.11.2020 in conrplaint number 2252 of 2019.

The provision to grant compensation is a separate and independent remedy that ernanates from section 31,,71, of The Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016 r /w rule 29 of Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) rules, 20t7.

Where the purpose of delayed possession charges is to provide interest on the amount paid by the buyer, the provision to award compensation is to compensate the buyer for, y-iofation of his/her right by the promoter/builder an_d fld,0,1,1,f.0r the inconvenience, wrong, trauma, harassment,iic. m6qqA to him/her on account of non- fulfillment of its obligations by latter (promoterJ under the agreement. agreement.

The complainilnts harre asked for Rs.

30 lacs as compensation for anxiety, mental trauma, harassment, etc.

Section 72 ofthe Act of 201,(i tells the factors, which this forum is obliged to take irnto cons;ideration for deciding amount of compensation.

The resprondent can be presumed to have gained by using money paid Lry complainants/allottee.

Similarly, the complainants have been d,epri,zed of us;e of their house for several years or therir mclne)/ i.e., Rs.

36,55,688/- which they paid to respondent as sale consideration.

Keeping in vierv tlie facts of this case, this forum (AO) allows a sum of Rs.

5 lar:s as compensation to the complainants for harassment, mental agolny and monetarry loss etc. to be paid by the respondent.

The complainants did not file any reccipt etc. of payments of fees to their advocates 'out it is,fact that the same dt PageTorB Afll Conrplaint N o.

534-2022 ffiHARERA ffi".eunuennrrl Conrplaint N o.

534-2022 were represented by an advocate, during proceedings of this matter.

The complainants are allowed Rs.

50,000/- as the cost of litigation.

The respondent is directed to pay the entire amount of compensation as detailed above, within 30 days of this order, otherwise, same will be liable to pay interest @10o/o P.A, till realization of the amount.

Complaint is thus disposed of.

File be consigned to the records. lr {/t' lA-tt- (RAJENDER KUMAR) Adiudicating Officer Page B of 8