Share this

In the common judgement for 8 separate complaints, namely, [Sr. No. 1] Gautam Harshe (Complaint No.CC006000000110775), [Sr. No. 2] Satish Sharma and Suman Sharma (Complaint No.CC006000000194026), [Sr.No.3] Mr.Vasant Sachidanand Panditand Mrs.Gayatri Vasant Pandit (Complaint No. CC006000000195703), [Sr. No.4] Mrs. Kavita Prabhakar and Mr. Prabhakar Varadarajan (Complaint No. CC006000000195724), [Sr. No.5] Piyush K Patel and Nirali Piyush Patel (Complaint No. CC006000000195813), [Sr. No.6] Ketan Dinkarray Raval and Tannavi Ketan Raval (Complaint No. CC006000000195815), [Sr. No.7] Umesh Kishanchand Laljani and Padma Umesh Lalijani (Complaint No. CC006000000195898), [Sr. No.8] Ramanik Pevekar (Complaint No. CC006000000196282), against a common respondent, Rajesh Real Estate Developers Private Limited.

The complainants above named have filed these separate complaints seeking direction from MahaRERA to the respondent to pay interest for the delayed possession / to refund the entire amount paid along with interest under the provisions of section 18 of the RERA in respect of the booking of their respective flats in the respondent’s registered project known as “White City Phase II Wing B” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P51800008324 situated at Kandivali, Mumbai.

Facts of the case: With regard to the claim agitated by the complainants at sr no. 1, the respondent has stated that the refund sought by the complainant is not maintainable. It has stated that clause no. 71 (e )(i) and (ii) of the said agreement signed between the parties, in case of any delay, the complainants are entitled to seek interest for the delayed possession as per clause no. 71 (e ) (i) and if it is not paid, the complainant can seek a refund. The respondent has stated that the project is 90% complete on site and it is going to apply for OC soon.

The MahaRERA has examined the arguments advanced by both the parties as well as the record. In the present case, these complaints have been filed mainly seeking refund/possession of the flats along with the interest/ compensation for the delayed possession under section 18 of the RERA. Admittedly, there are registered agreements for sale entered into between the complainants and the respondent promoter on various dates. Admittedly, possession of the flats was not given to the complainants on the said dates of possession mentioned hereinabove, it shows that the respondent promoter has violated the provision of section 18 of the RERA.

Order: In a common order dated 9th March 2022, in view of the aforesaid explicit provisions of section 18 of the RERA, the complainants at sr. nos. 1,3,4 and 8 have decided to withdraw from the project. Hence, they are entitled to seek the entire amount paid by them towards the consideration amount along with interest as prescribed under RERA and the relevant Rules made thereunder. Further, since the rest of the complainants viz at sr nos. 2,5,6, and 7 are willing to be in the project, they are entitled to seek interest for the delayed period of possession.

The respondent promoter is further directed to pay interest for the delayed possession to the complainants at sr. nos. 2, 5,6 and 7 from the agreed dates of possession mentioned in the agreements for every month till the actual date of possession with occupancy certificate on the actual amount paid by the complainants towards the consideration of their flats at the rate of Marginal Cost Lending Rate (MCLR) of SBI plus 2% as prescribed under the provisions of section 18 of the RERA and the Rules made thereunder.

As far as the claim of the compensation sought by the complainants at sr. nos.1,3,4 and 8 the MahaRERA is of the view that no documentary proofs of mental agony have been produced on record of MahaRERA. Hence the claim of the said complainants stands rejected.

Leave a Reply

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