VINOD KUMAR SIBAL vs SEPSET PROPERTIES PVT.LTD.

*HARERA 4E eunuemv BEF,RE rHEraRyANrq ^uo. *$^*il_o" 3:i""'."ifl r*:".".."' ii !;i!,r, 1.

Vinod KumarSibal 2.

Neeiam Sibat BothX/o: - crry21-8, Lawrence Road, Keshavpuram, Versus N1ls scp!er proncrtte\ pur L/ 1"".i:;:T:,:l_;j J^,.;,rp"'," r*,,,"-*., CORAM: sh Vijay KumarCoyal APP[ARANCE: ShriViIod Xunr,I Srbal 5h ri llman!hu sun8h Membe. ^ Comptarnant rn pcrson LoLrnteJ for rhe Respondent OXDER 1.

Tt€ presentromphrnr has been flled by the compEinanr/altortees under sedion 31 of rhe Real Estrte [Regutation anr short, the Act) read wth rr*,u o,,,,",..u,,0 o"'"iopment) Act' 2016 (in l:l*'"', ^,.'"". ;;;;;, ;:'l*, 1":"i,,",,',X"j,'ff:: l,tt1,{aJ ot rhe Acr where,n jr is rnrer rtra presrribed thar the promorer shail be responsibie ror aI oblg,non\. responsrbrtirres and Iunclions under the rujesrnd regutanons made (here undFr or to ,ne a oflees ds per rhe agrecmenl ror sate exe.uted inter \e A *HARERA {!- eunuonnM Unlt and proiect relate The parucutars of unit cornplajnants, dare of p ifany, have been detaile 2 tIthr tabul d details d in the fo o by rhe Details Ndme oirhc prtecr "p** n"*"1lEGil oo*,E^e;; Natureofpro[E croup uousing ciiifr REy reeEteiaznoi DTPC License;o.

118 of 2077 dated 2a.o1.2o1i 61 of 2otz dated B aa-.201' Vairdiry ttat[ 12_06.202a Name ofticens;- SepsetpropenE 11.76 acre OS. rower.e, +; flo;; (Page no.

15 ofcomplain0 Unitmeasurini 1385 sq. {L (Page no.

1S otcomptaintl Date of erecurron ""(r u, e\e(uhon of Floor 30.0s.2013 (Page no.40 ofreplyl Possession ctaus 3.1 Stbte.i .o Clause 10 here ct umstoa@' not dn(iopored _a u,L,i,i. reotonobte @hiot oI .he s"l* ; :-:, restminE rclnctions r,o. ,h, ;.,,;;i outhonties ond sutlect a *e eLa,"_.r!t noehs .onphed wth otr ttte erns "") fonotuorc oJ ths Agreene an(t not ben.

D uerout under on! ot the uovstoh: orihr Asreeneat ond ho ng .onphed wt;h o prcvEtons lbrdohtes docunenrotna_ et ns preynbed bt the S"tt* *t"t*,,a",-,i,i Agreene u theyBe_J.on dne tu dde th. teler propBq to hond ov the prsereoh . prsereoh .rrh" ap*-*, a rt " c*,r,"*|t,i;ii,i o penod ot 12 lForl!-twot months w h on E,,lr"i,ir'," 8o+o.,o, rlI *HARERA S-GURUGRAI/ comp a nr Nu 8046 of20z2 LI B.

Facts of the complaint 3.

The complainant has made the following submissioDs: ' al That the complainants booked a residential unit no T-B/0403' 2BHK in towers E & F,4ti floor admeasuring 1385 sq f in the respondent's project namely "Paras Dews", Sector 106, Gurugram' Haryana for a basic sale l:nvironment clearance od.litiondt gruce petiot oJ 6 l ) Months fton th. dote ol decution oI this A|r@mqt q .rote of obt4iniB a li.enses or opprovols, lhe connehcement o[ constrctio1, whichever is lot!, subiect to Force Mojeurc.

The Purchoset(s) asrees ahd underttonds thot the Seller sholl be entitled to o sro.e pelod af 9a lnneryl bu e$ davt oftet the elpiry ol qace penod for allet ta ho^d ove. the po$asion ol the Apafimeht to 06.09.2013 [pase 29 of reply) 9 l0 t1 Duedateoipossession 06.09.20 t7 (calculated from the date of env,ronment clearance i.e 06.09.2013 beins later including grace period) six months is allowed (Grace period of beingunqualined Tot.l sale consideration Rs.1,02,75,946l- Plus taxes tAs perpage no. z5 orreplyl Rs.88,88,014/- (as page no.

26 oireply) Total amount Paid bY the 13.

Occupatiorr certificate 26-O4.2423 (pase 22 or replyl n.042023 Ipase 76 oireplY) A/ Complaint No 8046 of2022 *HARERA S-cunucnnv consideration of Rs.98,76,450/_ and the buyer's agreement for the said unitwas executed on 30.05.2013 betwe€n theparties. bl That the complainants paid Rs.88,88,014/-against the sale consideration The payment for the subject unit was to be made according to the construction link€d payment plan and all the payments were made bv the compla,nants as perthedemands raised by the respondent' c) That despite paying all the payments as raised by th€ respondent the al That the complainants approached the authority for redressal of the alleged grievances lYith unclea. th unclea. hands, i'e, by not disclosing material facts pertaining to the case and by distorting and misrepresenting the actual factual situation with regard to several aspects The complainants are not consumer and had purchased the subject unit for the purpose of investment.

Further, th€y have not been successful in selling the subject .espondeni failed to deliver the possession of the said unit within the agreed time period.

The inordinate delay in handing over possession ol the unit clearly amounts to deficien€y ofservice on account ofthe respondent and the complainants have righdy claimed to withdraw irom the proicct and claim toial reiund of amount along with other interest and compensation as per section 18 of Real Estate (Regulation and Developmentl Act, 2016.

Reliefsought by the complainarts The complainants have so ught following rel,efr i.

Direc! the respondent to refirnd the total amount paid by the complainants along with the prescribed rate ofinterest' Reply by the respondent.

The respondent contested thecomplainton the followrng grounds: C, 4.

D, 5. f{ complaintNoS046of 2022 BA RAIV ARE URUG H G unit at a premium rate in the market and have filed the present complaint toavoidoutstandingduesagainstthesubjectunit. bl That th€ complainants have onlv paid Rs 88,88,014/- for the subiect unit against th€ total sale consideration ofRs 1,07,53,73l' and respoDdent has obtained the occupation certificate on 26.04'2023 fiom th€ competent c) That th€ possession of the subiect unit was to be handed over to the complainants in terms of clauses 31 and 3.2 of the builder buyer agreement dated 30.05.2013 which clearly provide that subiect to the complainant complying with all the terns ofthe bu'lder buyer agreement and making timely payments of the lnstalments as and when they lall due' The respondent proposed to ofter the possession of the unit wrthrn a periodor 5l months(42monrh+ gra. onrh+ gra.eperrodot6monthplusc0davs)or the date ot execution of the apartment buyer's agreement or date of obtaining all licenc€s or approvals for commencement of construction' whichever is later, lubject to torce majeure Moreover' all the approvals for commencement of the construction work were received towards the end of 2013 and con6truction work commenced in January 2014' dt That ihe resDondent has suffered due to the breaches commrned by lhe complainants sinc; the said respoodent has continued with the construction of the apartm€nt despite the complainants not paying the complete consideration.

Due to lhe failure of the complainants in paying the complete consideration, the respondent has suffered immeDse monetary hardshiP el That the Hon'ble Supreme Court, through an order dated 04'11'2019' imposed a blanketstay on all construction activity in the Delhi_NCR region' aftecting the respondent's project which led to a significant reduction in construction activily for a considerable period' Similar stay ord€rs were also issued in the precedingyears,20lT'2018 afi2018-2019, resulting in long-term halts in construction activities.

The pandemic of Covid_19 also had devastating effect on the worldwide econom, particularly on the industrial sector, iricluding the real estate sector, which is heavily dependent on its labour force.

Covernment-imposed lockdowns resulted in a complete stoppage of all construction act,vit,es in the NCR area until luly 2020.

The labour force employed by the respondent was iorced to return to their hometowns, leading to a severe shortage ol labour' The respondent has been unable to enploy the necessary labour for the completion of the Project Allother averments made ir the complaint were denied ir toto Copies of all the releYant documents have been filed and placed on the record.

Their authenticity is not in disPute.

H€nce the complaint can be decided on the basis of these undisputed documents and submission made by the parties. e parties. lurisdiction of the au&orlty The authority obser/es that it has teritorial as well as subject matter tur isdrction to adrud,clte the present complaint for lhe reasons given below E.

I Territorial lurisdlbrion As per notificahon nor \/9212O17jITCP dared 14.12 2017 issued bv Town and Country Planning DepartmenL Haryana, the iurisdiction olHaryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram d'stri€t for all purposes. ln the present case, the proiect in question is situated within the planning area of Curugram district Therefore, this authoritv has complete terr,torial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaiDt' E.

II subiect-matter iurisdlciion *HARERA :&-cLnuennv Compla nr No 8046 o12022 6.

7.

E.

8.

A lo.Section 11tal(a) of the Act, 2016 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

Section 11ta)(al is reproduced as hereunder: sectiot 11(4No) Ae responsible t'at all obligations, r$ponsibilities ond functians under the provisions ol t].,is Act ot the rules and rcgularion, noAe ther;undot ot to the ollottes as per the ogreenent fot sate o. ta the associatid ol olloneet as the cose nov be, till the cohrevonce ofall the oportuenrs, plots ot bu ikti ngs, os the co se n av be to the ol loues or the con on orcosto the o$octdtion oIolloxee! or the conpetent outhoritY,osthe cose nqY be.

11.So, in view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, the authority has complete jurisdict,on to decid€ the complaint regarding non'compliance of obligations by the promoter leav,ng aside compensation which is to be decided by the adiudicating olficer iipursued by the compla,nants at a later *HARERA &,eunuennv complarnt No 8046 of2022 12.

Further, the authority has no hitch in proceeding w,th the complaint and to grant a reliefofrelund in the present matterinview ofthe judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court i Newtech Prornotert and Developers Priva'e Ltmitei!

Vs Stote ol U.P. ald Ors. . ald Ors." SCC Onllne SC 1044 decided ot tt-11.2021wherci ithas been laid dowr as under: 'sb r.on Lhe rchene of thq A,t ofwnrh a detotl?.l rtJe tel' ? ho: been nad" "",t rukno note lt Do@, ot adtudtet@n ddneoAd ith thc rtattaton autho, 4 "nd olJi|,.tuatins oll'et. whot fioaht ' ufi\ oLt 6 t hat ottnoroh he Act ndicores th; disttrc; dpresiols like tefutu ' 'interen, 'penattt ond omhe.tottoc'. a @nta, qodhs ol Sedbh\ 13 oad 19 leoth nort[P:L Lnoi wnen t 'one" @ r"rtnd oJ thc onaunL and iata? ' on the '|etund omount, or direcnng polnent ol inrerest lat deloled delieery ol Po*$ian, or n.nato ond nrerelt oereon tt,. thp,pgutotary aur\oity whtch ho, rhe .nwei Lo e^oane ana ae@n ne the ottcone ol a .odPtonr AL tn?'one ',,-, "n"n " .*rt to o ou5tnn oJ t""k'ng th? ,"tte[ ol oa]udotno ..nn.nsotian aht) intetest thercon udet Sections 12 14, 1A and 19 the odtudt-oLn! ott\e' "^.tu!vpty ha. !h? power to deternn? teeuag n |eL t; .ok,ti";"adias ol setuon 't 'eoa w t' \e.L'an 72 of th?

4d I t\P od,ud,\ouor lrdq \Aton, tz 14. la ond la oth"t tnon toapento'iar !' r,,aaed- t ea"nd"a @,hP adtt onng olf' o'p'a!?d thot. tn ou' ttes -ot ,iora oe,po,a oe onotand.coo"ot fie poaet' ond ln'!oa'ottht fi. *HARERA db- crnrennl,,t compLcrnr No 804b of202z odiudi@tins allcet uhder Sedion 7l ond thot would be dgo inst the nondote of the Act 2016-" 13.

Hence. in view of the authoritative pronouncemeni of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the maner of M ls Ne*tech hltmoters and Developers Prlvote Linited vs Stote ol U.P, lnd ors (supra.), the authoritv has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint seek,ng refund of the amount and interest on the F. rindtng on obrections raised by the respondent t.l.

Obi€ction r€garding the complalnants belng investors' 14.The respondent has taken a stand that the complainants are the investors and not consumers, therefore, they are not entiiled to the protection of the Act and thereby not entitled to file the complaint under section 31 ofthe Act The respondents also submi also submitted that the preamble olthe Act states that th€ Act is enacted to protect the interest of consumers of the real estate sector' The authorty obseryed that the respondents ar€ correct in stating that the Act is enacted to protect the interest ofconsumers of tbe r€al estate sector' It is settled principle of interpretation that preamble is an introduction of a sratute and states main aims & obiects of enacting a statute but at the same rime oredmble cannot be used to dPteat lhe en'ctrng provilions of the Act Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that any aggrieved person can file a complaint against the promoter ifthe promoter ''ontravenes or violates any provisions ofthe Act or rules or regulat'ons made thereunder' At this stage' it is important to stress upon the definition ofterm allottee under the Act' the same is reproducedb€low for readv reference: ) ttt, 'oltottee" n qtot Dn .o o 'eol P\hte prcEct ncon: th" pet 'on to wttar o ;,;,';;;;;,,., t.t,.o. o' the ca\e aot be. ho' bc"n ottoked"atd i"i.i"i.' ",*aa o, t",i,noa) o' oheqre t'on'tercd bv thP p'ono@' '..a 'i":.'iii ii. ,ii^ ,* -b'eqLenlt! o'qum\ the \od ottotnent t tat ,ii ii'ii, .,7a"*,. t", do;s not nduttP o pe-a to whon 'u'h ptot ;".,rn ior Dutdqi.^t^c 'o,e dov be-^syea on tent: /4 &H Se ARERA URUGRA[/ Compla'nr No 8046 or 2022 15.ln view ot above'mentioned definition of "allottee" as well as all the terms and conditions of the apartment buyer's agreement executed between promoter and complainants, it is crystal clear that the complainants are allotteeG) as the subiect unit was altotted to them bv the promoter' The concept ofinv€stor is not defined or ref€rred in the Act' As per the d€finit'on given under section 2 ofthe Act, there will be "promoter" and "allottee" and there cannot be a party having a status of"investo'" Thus, th€ contention of promoter that the allottee be,ng an investor is not entitled io protection of this Act also stands rejected.

F.I. cted.

F.I.

Oblection regardhg the force maieure' 16.The respondent_promoter raised the contention that' the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.11.2019, imposed a blanket stav on all construction activity in the Delhi NCRregion and the respondent was under the amb,t of the stay order, and accordingly, there was next to no construction activity for a considerable period and other similar orders duringthe winterper,od 2017_2019.A complete ban on construction activitv at site iDvariably resuttsin along_term halt in construction activities Aswith a comDlete ban lhe con.erned labours ieft the site and they wenl lo th"rr native villages and look out for work in other states, the resumption ofwork at site becomes a slow process and a steady pace of construction realized after long period of lt.

It is pertinent to mention here that flat buver's agreement was executed behve€n the parties on 30'05 2013 and as per the terms and conditions otthe sa,d agreement the due date of handing over of possessioncomes 06.09.2017 which is wav before the abovementioned orders.

Thus, the promoter-respondent cannot be given any leniency on based ol aforesaid reasons and it is well settled principle that a pe'son .annot t3ke benefit othis own wrong. /E ffHARERA 9- r,rnrcnml CdmolrLnr N.

3046.f 2{)22 17.Further, the respondent-promoter has raised the contention that the construction otthe project was d€lay€d due to reasons beyond the control of the respondent such as COVID-19 outbreak lockdown due to outbreak of such pandemic and shortage of labour on this account.

The authority put reliance judgment oi Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled asMls Ha ibufion Ofrshore 9ervlces lnc. v/S vedonta Ltd- & Anr. bearing no.

O.M.P (l) (Comn,) no. aa/ 2o2o and Lts 3696-3697/2020 dated 29.05.2020 which has obserued that- "69 The post nan-perfornanu ol the cutroctor cahhot be condoned due to the covtD-19 lockdown in March 2A20 in lndio The Conioctat wos in brcach since Septenbet 2019. nbet 2019. opportLnities wm given to the Cohtoctor to cure the sane repeatedly.

Despte the tune, the connocbt co!]d not conplete the P.otecL fhe outbreok of d pondenrc can^ot be uvd os on exctse for non perlornonte of o controct far which the d,.ttjnes were nuch belore the oLtb.eok it&[.

18.In the present complaiht also, the respondeDt was liable to complete the construction of the proiect in question and handover the possession oi the .ard unu by 06.0c.2017.The responden! is claiming benefit of lockdosn which came into effect or 23.03.2020 whereas the due date ofhanding over olpossession was much prior to the ercnt ofoutbreak olCovid_19 pandemic.

Thereiore, the authority is of the view that outbreak ofa pandemic cannot be used as an excuse for non-performance ofa contract lor which the deadlines were mD.h before the outbreak itself and for the said reason the said time period is not excludcd while calculatinS the delay in handing over possession.

C.

Findlngs on the relief sought by the complalnants.

G.l Dir€ct the respondents to refund the total amount paid by the complainants along wlth the prescrib€d rate ofinteresl 19.

That the €omplainants booked a unit 03, Tower-8, 4ri floor in the project of n thercspondenlnamely.

PARASDfUS"admedsunng\uperaredof 1385\q t\,/ Page 10 of16 ft. for an agreed sale consid€ration of Rs.1,02,75,946/- against whrch complainants paid an amount oi Rs.88,88,014/- and the respondent has failed to hand over the physical possession till date.

That the complainants intend to withdraw irom the project and are seeking .efund of the paid-up amount as provided under the section 18(11 of the Act.

Sec.

18(1) proviso Settion ta: - Retura oJ ohounr ond compensotion 18(1) [ the prcnoter loits to conptete or is unoble to sive possion olan oponnent, plot, ot building, - (a) n occordance wt\h the terns ol the as@hent lor ete or, os the cov no! b" dLly,anpbad bythedote spitfad th etn ot (b)due to discohtinuonce o/ hir blsine$ os o devetopet on aaount al aaount al suspension ot rcvocation af the rcgistrutian under this Act or lor ont othet he sholl be lioble on denand oJ th. dllott et in case the ollottee wishes to wthdtuw lton lhe projeq without preludice to on! othe. renedt oroiloble, to retuo fie anounr recelv.d by htm in respect ol thot opaftmen4 plot, bul.lilg, os the cose ndy b., eih int*st ot su.h rote os mat be prescrib4 in this beha[including canp%atian tn rhenonner os p rov tded u ndet thi s Act: Pravided thot whee an ollottee does not intend to withdtow ltod the protect, he sholl be pOid, by the prcnoteL lnteren for every nonth ol delay, till the honding ovet oftle po*sian, ot flch rcte os nd! be pr$cribed (Enphont supptie.t) 20.As per clause 3.1 of the agreement provides for handing over of possession and is reproduced below: *HARERA S-r,unrcnnu Complaint No 8046 of2022 j,7 Subject to Clouse 10 herch ot ony other circunrtonces not antictpoted ond beyand the rcosonable cohtrol oI the kllet ond an, .estaints renticdohs ron onr coutts/ authonties ond sLqe.t to the Purchose4, ho,ins conplied |'ith all the ter s and condttiohs ol this Agreenant ond naL heing in delduk under ohy oI the Provtnons of th6 Agreenent ond havtns cahptied with dll prcvisions. lomolhie' docunentottan, et os prescribed by the Seller, whether undet this Asr.eneht or otheNie, frcn tme to tine, the Se et pfoposet to hond over the poss.ssion oI the Aportnent to ttp PuEhose4, withia d penod ol 42 (Forty-two) noaths with an ad.litionot sroce perio.t ol6 (six) Months ltun the dote ofexecution of this Agreeneat or.lot oIobtoining o licens$or dpprovats, The cannencenent of construuion, whrchever 6 later, stbject ta Farce MojeLre-fhe Putchoser@ ogrces ond understonds thot the Seler sholl be enttled to o groce petiad al90 (hinety) buti,E$ doys, afte. the expry ol gro@ period, lor afrer ta hond ovet the posession of the apartnent to the Putchoser. v (omplarnt No 8046 ol202Z HARER.

02Z HARER.: GURUGRAN/ On consideration of the abovementioned clause, the authority is satisfied that the respondent,s in contraventioD ofthe section 11(4)(a) olthe Act by not handing over possession by the due date as per the agreement.

By virtue oi clause 3.1 of the agreement dated 30.05.2013, the possess,on of the subject un,t was to be delivered within a per,od of 42 months with an add,t,onal grace period of 6 months from the date of execution ot the agreement or date of obtaining all licenses or approvals.

The due date is calculated 48 months from date of environment clearance i.e.,06.09.2013 being later.

AccordiDgly, the due date of possess,on comes out to be 06-09.2017 and there is a delay ofmore than 5 years on the date of fihng of complaint to handover the possession ofthe allotted un,t Thc occupation certiflcate/part occupation certificate of th€ buildings /towers where allotted unit of the complainants is situated was received aiter liling of complai[t by the complaiDants for return of the amount received by the promoter on failure of promoter to complete or unable to give possessio. oi the urit in accordance with the terms of the buyer's agreement.

The complainants have already wished to withdraw from the Further, vide proceedi4gs dated 26.10.2023, the counsel for the respondent stated at bar that occupation c€rtificate in resp€ct ofthe tower of the subject unit has been obtained on 26.04.2023 from the competent authoritv and offer of possess,on has been made on 28-04.2023 to the complainants and is wiuins to handover the possession of the allotted unit after pavment of outstanding amount due tolvards the complainants.

Though the complainants, wished to withdraw from the project and demands .efund of the paid-up amount r€ceived by th€ promoter/respondent in respect of the unit with interest on failure olthe promoter to complete or inabilitv to give possession ofthe unit,n accordance with the terms ofbuyer's agreement.

21. ement.

21.

2a\ t\ Comnla'nr No 8046 ot 2022 *HARERI -&- cunrcnlu 24.

Keeping in view the fact that the allottee/complainants wishes to withdraw from the project and demanding return of the amount received by the promoter in respect of the unit with interest on failure of the promoter to complete or inability to Sive possession of the unit ,n accordance with the terms ofagreement for sale or duly completed by the date specified therein.

The matter is covered under section 18(1) ofthe Act of2016 2 5.

Admlssibility of r€lirnd at prescribcd rate of int€resL The complainants are seeking refund amount at the prescribed rate of interest on the amount already paid by them.

However, allott€€s intends to withdraw irom the project and is seeking retund of the amount pa,d by him in respect oa the subject unit with intere6t ar prescribed rate as provided under rule 15 of the rules.

Rule 15 has been feproduced as under: Rule 15.

P.6crrl.., mk ol ina$est lProvin to Yctid 72, action ta and sub-secdon l*) otd stbsectton (7) olsectio4 191 ( 1) For the purp8e of bloeiso to section 12; ection lai ond sub'ecrions (4) and (7) al sqtion 19, ttb "interest ot the rot pr6c betl" sholl be the ote Bonk al tndio hishest natsinol cott of lending rote +2%.: Prcvide.l thot in co* rhe State Ennk ol lndio na.ginal cbt of lendins rote (MCLR) is not in we, it sholl be replocad b! tuch benchno.k lending roEs which the stote Bdnk of lndia noy lt lron tine to tine lo/ lending to the g.nerolpublic.

26.The legislature in its wisdom in the subordinate legislation under the provision ol rule I5 dl the rules, has determtned thP prescnbed rrte oi interest.

The rate of interest so d€termined by the legislature, is reasonable and ilthe said rule is fbllowed to award the interest, it will ensure uniform practice in allthe cases.

27.

Consequently, as per website ofthe State Bank otlndia i.e., https://sbi.co.in, the marginal cost of lending rate [in short, MCLR] as on date i.e., 21.12.2023 is 8.85E0. is 8.85E0.

Accordingly, the prescribed rat€ ofinterestwill be marginalcost of lending rate +2% i.e.,10.850,6. {\ a.m.l3,nt No 4046 of2022 HARERA GURUGRAIV 28.The definition of term 'interest' as defined under section 2[za) of the Act provides that the rate of interest chargeable from the allottees by the promoter, in case of default, shall be equal to the rate ol interest whi€h the promoter shall be liable to pay the allottees, in case otdefault.

The rel€vant section is reproduced below: ''(zo) "interest" nens the rctes ol intetest payoble by the prtuoter ot the o t I ouee, os the co se noy be.

ExDlanation.

Fot the purpose of this clauv- the rote oI inreren chorgeoble fron the ollottee by the pronoter, th cose ol default, shall be equal to the tute of interest which the pmmotet shall be liable ro pa! the ollottee, in cov ofd4a!]L the jnterest poyoble bt ke prctuorer $ the ollottee sholl be lron the dote the pronoter received the onount or on! potr th eol till the dote the o ount or part thereof ahd interest rhercon is relLnde.l, ond the interest payable by the allottee to the prcnotet sholl be fton the dote the ollottee defouhs in poyne4t to the pronoter till the dote it b poid: Further in the judgeme+t ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in the cases of Newtech Promoters and Developers Private LlmLed vs stote oJ u.P. dtd Ors.

2021-2022(1) rltteraea tn case ol M/s sano Reoltors Ptivate Limited & other Vs Unlon or lndta & others SLP (Clv ) No.

13005 o12020 decrded on 12.05.2022.Itwas observed as underl 25 The unquolifed nght of the ollottee to Seek rclund relefted Under section 13(1)(0) ond s@tion 19(4) oJ the Au is rot dePadent oh anr contingencies at ltipulations thereol lt appeac thot the legBlotute hos conniousl! provided thk tight ol refund on denand ds an unconditional obsolute right to lhe ollottee, il the pmhotel lails to give posssion of the opothena plot ol building within rhe tine stipuloted undet the temt ol the asreeheht resa,nbss of unforeseq senb ot s senb ot stot otuers ol the coutt/lribundl, ehich is in either way notottributable to the allotr@/hone buler, the pronoter is u^der on abligotion to rcfund the onoLnt on demtnd with intercst ot lhe rate prcscnbed bt the Stote Cavetnnent including canpensotion in the nonnet ptuvided under the Act with rhe proviso thot il the allottee does not wnh b \|thdraw lron the Prolect, he shall be entitled t'or interest lor the pe^o.1 of deloy till handins orer possession ot the ruLe 30.The promoter is re fun.tions under the for all obligations, responsibilities, and s of the Act of 2016. ot the rules and A Compla'nrNo8046of 2022 {THARERA d}-oiruonnttt f"G, resulations made therepna", o, to ttt" "ttln.. u, per agreement lor sale under section 11(4)(a).

The promoter has failed to complet€ or unable to Cive possessron ot the fnir in a.cordance with the terms of agreement for sal€ or duly completeE by the date sp€clfied therein.

Accordrngly, the promoters are iiable lt the allottee, as he wishe\ to withdraw Irom the proiect, qthoul preiudice to any other remedy available. to relurn lhe amount received by theln in respect ofthe unit with inter€st at such rate as may be prescribed.

The authority hereby di[ects the promoter to retum the amount received by ir r.e..

Rs.88.88,01al- w[h interest d the.rate oi I0.85% (lhe state Bank of India highesr marsinal cost of lending ratE (MCLR) appllcable as on date +2qo) as prescribed *[* *f" tt of th€ Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Developmeno tult.2017 from the date of earh payment tillthe actual date of refund of the arfount within the timelines provided in rule 16 or the Haryana Rules 2017 ibif.

Diredions of the AuthqdtY .Hence, the authoflty "r"UV p"""es thls order and issues the tollowrng drrecflons under sectioln 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligatrons ,asr uDon the promotei as p.r the function entrusted lo the authonty under secrion 3a(D: l.

The respondenl/bromoter is dlrected to re{und the entire amounl of Rs. unl of Rs.88,88,014/- plid by the complalnants along with prescribed rate ol interest @ 10.85t p.a. from the date ofeach payment lill lhP rctualddte of retund oi the leposited amount as per provrsions of section l8(l ) of rhe Ad r.,d wirh rule 15 ofthe rules.2017. ll.

A period ot 90 $ays ls given to the respondents to complv wtlh rhe diremons given in this order and falllng which legal consequences w.trld f6llow.

PaBe tS or 16 31.

H, 32 s. *HARERi P* GURUGRAN/ rights against th ltl 33.

Complaint stands 34.

F,le b€ consigned to reg Dated:21.12.2023 ComolainrN.

3046of 2022 aring dues of allottees'complainants. further directed to not to create any third-party subject unit before full realization of the paid up interest thereon to thecomplainants and even it any with respectto subject unit, the receivables shallbe (vUay Kuffarcoyal) Haryana Real Estate Regulalory Autho.ity, Gurugram