Shagun Reality
Share this

In the matter of Balkrishna Solanki and Manju Solanki vs.Piramal Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (Complaint No. CC006000000195198), the complainants are seeking directions from MahaRERA to the respondents to refund the entire consideration amount paid by them along with interest under the provisions of section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’) in respect of booking of a flat bearing no. 703 – A in the respondent’s registered project known as “Piramal Aranya – Wing A” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P51900003324 located at Byculla East, Mumbai.

Facts of the case: It is the case of the complainants that they have been allotted the said flat in the respondents’ project vide allotment letter dated 06/03/2018 and have till date paid an amount of Rs. 26,92,389/- along with TDS of Rs. 25,275/-. Further, on request of the complainants, the next due of April 2019 was extended for one year to 31.03.2020. The complainants stated that, at the time of booking the project was being developed by Piramal, however, the promoter is now Glider Buildcon Realtors which shows malafides of the respondents. The complainants therefore prayed for refund of the total amount with interest and compensation.

However, there is RFR duly signed by both the parties on 27-07-2017, wherein the date of possession is mentioned as date of completion mentioned on MahaRERA website

i.e 31-12-2023 and admittedly the said date is yet to arrive and hence, the MahaRERA is of the view that the claim of refund sought by the complainants under section 18 of the RERA is premature as on date. Hence, the reliefs sought by the complainants under section 18 of the RERA stands rejected.

The complainants have not stated any violation of section 12 of the RERA showing any false notice /advertisement published by the respondent promoter, due to which he suffered from any sort of loss as contemplated under section 12 of the RERA.

Order: In an order dated 15th March 2022 , the MahaRERA is of the view that in absence of any agreed date of possession, the claim of refund sought by the complainants under sections 12 and 18 of the RERA cannot be considered. Therefore, if the complainants are seeking cancellation of the said booking the respondent is entitled to take action in accordance with the terms and conditions of the RFR+ dated 27-07-2017 signed by both the parties. The respondent no.2 after raising various demand letters to the complainants has finally cancelled the said booking on 16-04-2021 and thereby forfeited the entire amount paid by the complainants in accordance with the terms and conditions of RFR.

In view of these facts and circumstances of this case, since the complainants have chosen to exit from the project, the respondent no.2 promoter is directed to refund the amount if any paid by complainants allottees within a period of 3 months from the date of this order.

Leave a Reply

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