Haryana RERA Upholds Cancellation Of Flat's Booking, Orders Planning Division To Take Action Against Vatika For Non-Registration

Background Facts

On 29.05.2015, Homebuyer (Complainant) purchased a flat measuring super built up area of 1550 sq. ft with covered car parking in the builder's (Respondent) project named "Xpressions by Vatika", situated at Sector 88 B, Gurugram. The total cost of the flat was Rs. 1,02,25,500/-, out of which homebuyer paid Rs. 39,30,437/- to builder.

As per clause 13 of the buyer's agreement the builder was supposed to offer possession to homebuyer on and before 25.05.2020. However, builder failed to complete the project by due date. Further, Homebuyer contended that builder has terminated his allotted flat by the letter dated 27.09.2023.

Further, Homebuyer mentioned that even after 5 years of implementation of RERA, 2016, the builder has not registered the project under Authority as per the Section 3 of RERA, 2016.

Therefore, aggrieved by these issues, Homebuyer filed complaint before the authority seeking revocation of cancellation of allotment, delayed possession interest and inquiry for violation of section 3 of RERA, 2016.

Observation and Direction by Authority

The authority referred to Clause 8 of the buyer's agreement, which stipulated that the builder has the right to cancel the unit and forfeit the earnest money if the allotment of the unit is cancelled due to the homebuyer's default in making timely payments as per the agreed payment plan.

The authority observed that the builder gave the homebuyer enough chances to make the required payments and then finally cancelled the allotment of the homebuyer's flat on 27.09.2023. Additionally, under section 19(6) and section 19(7) of the RERA, 2016, the homebuyer has an obligation to make necessary payments in a timely manner. Therefore, the authority held that the cancellation of the allotment by the builder is valid.

The authority referred to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision in the case of Jayant Singhal and Anr. vs. M3M India Limited (CC/2766/2017), where it was held that 10% of the basic sale price is a reasonable amount to be forfeited as earnest money.

Therefore, the authority directed the builder to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer after deducting 10% of the basic sale consideration with 11.10% interest.

Lastly, regarding the issue of non-registration of the project even after six years of the implementation of RERA, 2016, the Authority directed the Planning Division to take action against the builder for the non-registration of the project under RERA.

Case – Mr. Chirag Arora & anr Versus Vatika Limited

Citation – Complaint no 5012 of 2023

Order Date – 18.09.2024