Filing Complaint After Project Completion, MahaRERA Rejects Homebuyers Claim
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I), rejected the homebuyers' claim against Larsen & Toubro Ltd (builder) for a refund with interest under Section 18, holding that the complaint was filed after the project was completed and the Occupancy Certificate had been issued. Background Facts Both Homebuyers...
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I), rejected the homebuyers' claim against Larsen & Toubro Ltd (builder) for a refund with interest under Section 18, holding that the complaint was filed after the project was completed and the Occupancy Certificate had been issued.
Background Facts
Both Homebuyers (Complainants) purchased a flat in the builder's (Respondent) project named “Crescent Bay - T3” situated at Parel, Mumbai. The total consideration of flats were Rs.2,97,07,015/- and Rs. 2,85,89,976/- respectively.
Further, Builder signed booking application form with both homebuyers on 25.07.2015. In order to purchase the flat, both homebuyers paid Rs.58,81,395/- and Rs.59,37,838/- respectively to builder.
Homebuyers contended that builder promised them for possession of the flats in 2019 through an email dated May 8, 2018. However, Despite promoting the project as an exclusive development with timely delivery and high-quality materials, the builder has failed to meet these commitments.
Further, due to delay homebuyers applied for cancellation of their booking on 08.05.2018 and requested refund from the builder. On December 22, 2021, the builder agreed to refund Rs. 56,35,867/- for both flats as full and final settlement, but builder failed to refund the amount to homebuyers.
Therefore, aggrieved by the builder's actions, the homebuyers filed separate complaints before authority seeking a refund of entire money with interest, along with compensation under Section 18 of RERA, 2016. Authority decided to club both complaints for a common judgment.
Observation and Direction by Authority
The authority observed that there is no signed agreement for sale or allotment letter which stipulates any agreed possession date. The homebuyers only have booking application forms dated 25-07-2015, which do not mention a specific possession date. The payments made by the homebuyers' amount to nearly 20% of the total consideration for the flats.
Further, authority noted that the homebuyers failed to provide any documentary evidence that the builder agreed to hand over possession by 31-12-2019. Therefore, the authority did not accept the claim that the possession date was 31-12-2019.
Further, authority noted that complaints were filed on 5-08-2022, more than four years after the alleged reasonable possession date of July 2018 and homebuyers did not provide any valid explanation for the delay.
Authority observed that the Part Occupancy Certificate (OC) for the project was obtained on 31-01-2022. The complaints were filed after the flats were completed and the OC was issued, so the cause of action under Section 18 of the RERA, 2016 did not survive.
Further, Authority noted that both parties attempted to settle the matter, with the builder preparing cheques for the homebuyers. However, homebuyers did not accept the settlement and filed the complaint before authority.
Authority observed that the booking application forms included a clause for forfeiture of 5% of the total consideration upon cancellation. However, Authority Order No. 35/2022, issued on 12-08-2022 prescribes a 2% forfeiture for cancellations.
Therefore, Authority partly allowed the complaint and directed builder to refund the amount after deducting 2% of the total consideration.
Case – Mitali Enterprises Versus Larsen & Toubro Ltd & anr A/W 1 Other
Citation – Complaint No. CC006000000292237 A/W 1 Other
Date of order – 30.09.2024