Praveen vs Vatika Limited pronounced by HARYANA RERA Gurgaon - Synopsis
HARSHIT BATRA 15 Dec 2021

Facts:

·       In this case, the complaint was lodged by the complainant under section 31 of the Act.

·       The complainants booked a unit in Respondent's project “Tranquil Heights” situated in sector-82 A, Gurugram.

·       The complainant has paid Rs 6,00,000 as a booking amount and the respondent has allotted a unit bearing no. A-203 on the 2nd floor, admeasuring 1645 sq. ft to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs 1,17,22,270 including the BSP, EDC, IDC, IFMS, etc.

·       The BBA was executed on 30.07.2015 and the due date for the date of delivery of possession was decided to be 30.07.2019 i.e. 48 months from the date of execution of BBA, but the respondent has failed to deliver the possession to date.

Complainant's Case:

·       The complainant has paid Rs. 68,28,052 in total as per the agreed payment plan but has not received any update on the construction status of the project from the respondents even after several requests.

·       All this was considered to violate Section-18(1) of the Act and so, the complainant sought the refund of the write paid amount along with interest and Rs. 5,00,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 1,25,000 towards litigation.

Reply by Respondents:

·       The Respondent averred that the BBA was executed before 2016, so the project does not fall under the purview of RERA.

·       Also, the complainant has not made all the timely payments of the installments.

·       The Respondent also alleged that the delay was due to force majeure circumstances and he is not liable for the delay, so the complaint needs to be dismissed.

Issues:

·       Whether the project in question fall under the purview of RERA?

·       Whether the delay caused was because e of force majeure circumstances?

·       Whether the complainant is entitled to a refund along with the interest?

Determination of issues:

Issue:1

·       The respondent has not obtained the competition certificate for the project in question on the date when the RERA came into force, so will come under the definition of “ongoing” projects and will fall under the purview of RERA and shall be governed by the provisions of RERA.

Issue:2

·       The respondent has not placed on record, any evidence to collaborate its affirmations regarding the delay was caused due to orders of NGT and EPCA. Also, it has failed to prove that there was any shortage of sand and stone during the construction of the project.

·       The writ petition against the GAIL was also dismissed by the High court.

·       Yes, the lockdown was imposed due to covid-19, but the same was imposed much after the due date of delivery of possession.

·       So, to conclude, the authority of the view that the delay was not because of the force majeure circumstances that are beyond the control of the respondent.

Issue:3

·       As the due date for the delivery of possession was decided to be on 39.07.2019 and the possession is not handed over to the complainant to date, and also the respondent has not received OC to date which makes it clear that the construction of the project is not complete.

·       The Authority says that the respondent cannot make the buyer wait for its dream house indefinitely.


×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com