Shagun Reality
Share this

By Staff Reporter

In the case of Amit Dattatray Bechhave vs. Vasundhara Constructions Vasundhara Ashok Talware Hemlata Ashok Talware (Complaint No. CC001000000000114), the complainants have filed this complaint seeking directions from MahaRERA to the respondent to refund the entire amount paid by him along with interest and compensation under the provisions of section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’) in respect of the booking flat bearing No. A2/02 in the respondent’s registered project known as “Springfield” bearing MahaRERA registration no. P51600011544 located at Nashik.

Facts of the case: It is the case of the complainant that by a registered agreement for sale dated 07-10-2011, he has purchased the said flat in the respondents’ project for total consideration amount of Rs. 23,20,000/-. As per the said agreement for sale, the respondent has promised the date of possession of the said flat to the complainant as December, 2011. However, till date the possession is not handed over to him and even no occupancy certificate is received and till date no title was transferred or conveyance transferred in his name.

Further, the respondents have given wrong information to MahaRERA about possession and about title. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint seeking refund of the money paid by him along with interest from the date of payment, and also refund of the stamp duty and taxes under sections 11, 13, 18 ,19 of the RERA and heavy penalty to be imposed on promoter for violation of section 4 of the RERA for giving wrong information about original possession date.

Being promoter of this project, it was the duty of the respondent to get all requisite permissions from the competent authority and the complainant allottee has nothing to do with the same. Even if the project was getting delayed, then the respondent should have informed the said reasons of delay and should have revised the date of possession mentioned in the said agreement by executing a supplementary agreement. However, no such steps have been taken by the respondent. Moreover, no plausible explanation of alleged delay has been given by the respondent.

Even if the reasons cited by the respondent promoter are taken into consideration as plausible explanation, the respondent promoter is entitled to seek 6 months’ grace period extension in the date of possession which was permissible under the provisions of MOFA in which the present agreement for sale was executed between the parties. Considering the said 6 months’ grace period the date of possession comes to 30-06-2012 from 31-12-2011. Even on that date the project was incomplete, and the possession was not handed over to the complainant.

Likewise, in the present case, since the respondents have failed to handover possession of the flat to the complainants on the agreed date of possession committed in the registered agreement for sale, the complainant is entitled to seek refund under section 18 of the RERA.

Order: In an order dated 16th June 2022, the respondent is directed to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant towards the consideration amount of the said flat along with interest at the rate of SBI’s Highest Marginal Cost of funds based funds based Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% as prescribed under the provisions of section-18

of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the Rules made there under from the date of payment till the actual realization of the said amount.

Needless to state here that the actual amount as provided under section 18 of the RERA means the amount paid by the complainant towards the consideration of the said flat only, excluding the stamp duty, registration charges and taxes etc. paid to the government.

Leave a Reply

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