Deen Dayal Awas Yojana (DDJAY) project
Share this

This brief explains a common order for 4 separate complaints, namely, [] Yogesh Saraf vs. Mateshwari Altura (Complaint No. CC006000000193052), and [Sr. no.2] Mrs Bhakti Bhaskar Walve vs. Paresh Babulal Patel (Complaint No. CC006000000193467), [Sr. no.3] Sachin Mohan Patil vs. Paresh Babulal Patel (Complaint No. CC006000000193483), [] Paras Raghunath Shinde vs. Paresh Patel (Complaint No. CC006000000197297).

The complainants above named have filed these 4 separate complaints seeking directions from MahaRERA to the respondent to refund the entire amounts paid by them along with interest/compensation for the delayed possession under the provisions of section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’) in respect of the booking of their respective flats in the respondent’s registered project known as “Mateshwari Altura B and C Wings” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P51700010188 located at Dombivali, Dist. Thane.

Facts of the cases: It is the case of the complainants that they are allottees of this project registered by the respondent promoter. They have stated that they have entered into registered agreements for sale with respect to their flats on various dates from 2014 till 2018 and have paid substantial amounts to the respondent promoter. As per the said agreements, the respondent promoter was liable to handover possession of their flats between the year 2016 till 2019. However, they have not been handed over possession of their flats. The complainants have provided the following information in their complaints in support of their claim. The complainants have stated that though they have paid substantial amounts, the respondent promoter has failed and neglected to handover possession of their flats and the respondent has not obtained occupancy certificate for this project thus violating the provisions of section 18 of the RERA and hence e the complainants are entitled to seek relief of refund along with interest and compensation for the delayed possession under the said section. The complainants further stated that they have bought their flats by availing the home loan and the respondent though has agreed to pay the Pre EMI to the Bank has failed to pay the same, due to which they suffered mental as well as monetary loss. The respondent though filed the reply raising technical issues has not cited any valid reasons of delay in handing over possession of the flats to the complainants, though the complaints at sr. nos. 1 to 3 have been filed in the year 2020. Still the respondent kept silent on these complaints and not even bothered to file its reply on merits though the basic reliefs sought by the complainants are for refund. Hence, the MahaRERA cannot wait for an unreasonable period for reply of the respondent and keep the complainants allottees in such suffering situation when the respondent himself has admitted the proposed date of completion of this project as 31-12-2016 as disclosed on MahaRERA webpage.

Order: In a common order dated 24th January 2022, in view of above facts and discussion, the respondent is directed to refund the entire amount paid by the complainants towards the consideration of their respective flats along with interest As far as claim of compensation sought by the complainants no cogent documentary proof of mental agony has been produced on record of MahaRERA. Hence the same stands rejected.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *