This brief explains a common order for 2 separate complaints, namely, [Sr.no.1] Suresh Balu Kale and Supriya Suresh Kale (Complaint No. CC006000000193139), and [Sr. no.2] Ravindra Bhanu Saundalkar and Revati Ravindra Saundalkar (Complaint No. CC006000000193140) against a common respondent, Dwarika Reak Infra LLP.
The complainants above named have filed these two separate complaints seeking direction from MahaRERA to the respondent to refund the entire amounts 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 their flats bearing nos. B-107 on 1st floor and B-406 on 4th floor respectively in the respondent’s registered project known as “Dwarika Valley Phase I” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P52000003025 situated at Neral, Dist. Raigarh.
Facts of the cases: It is the case of the complainants that they are the allottees of this project registered with MahaRERA by the respondent and have filed these complaints mainly seeking reliefs of refund under section 18 of the RERA.
The respondent has filed its reply in both the complaints and refuted the claim of the complainants. It has mainly stated that the said complaints deserve to be rejected at the threshold as the complainants have suppressed the vital facts from the MahaRERA which is necessary for the purpose of adjudicating these complaints.
With regard to the above issues as contended by the respondent in response to the complaints about the suppression of material facts that there are outstanding dues still payable by the complainants, the MahaRERA is of the view that the said contention of the respondent has no substance, as the complainants were liable to pay the entire consideration on the agreed date of possession i.e. 30-06-2019. As the project was incomplete on that date, the question of entire consideration by the complainants does not arise. Moreover, the respondent itself has admitted that it has completed the said project and applied for OC in the month of July, 2020. It shows that even after one year from the agreed date of possession gets over, the project was incomplete till July, 2020. Hence the MahaRERA feels that the reasons cited by the respondent do not give plausible explanation The respondent, as a promoter, having sound knowledge in the real estate sector, the respondent was fully aware of the market risks when he launched the project and signed the agreement with the home buyers In view of the aforesaid explicit provisions of section 18 of the RERA, in the present case, the complainants have decided to withdraw from the project. Hence, they are entitled to seek entire amount paid by them towards the consideration amount along with interest as prescribed under RERA and the relevant Rules made thereunder.
Order: In a combined order dated 9th March 2022, the respondent promoter is directed to refund the entire amount paid by the complainants towards the consideration of the said flats along with interest.
As far as claim of the compensation sought by the complainants 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.