By Legal Cell
In the case of Mudhit Gupta vs. Glider Buildcon Realtors Private Limited (Complaint No. CC006000000193972), the complainant has filed this complaint seeking direction from MahaRERA to the respondent to refund the entire amount paid by him 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 the booking of a flat bearing no. 4205 on 42nd floor in the respondent’s registered project known as “South Tower” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P51900015854 situated at Mumbai.
Facts of the case: It is the case of the complainant that he submitted a form titled, “Request for Reservation of Residential Unit” (ROR), in respect of the said 2 BHK flat for the total sale consideration of Rs.3,96,75,301/- He sought for the details of registration of the said project repeatedly, but the respondent wilfully failed, neglected and avoided to provide the same.
Appalled by the fact that the (i) details of litigations affecting the said project were not disclosed; (ii) that respondent had not issued allotment letter in format uploaded by it on website of MahaRERA, or otherwise; and (iii) that the respondent had not expressed acceptance the request of the complainant, as made in the said ROR, in spite of having made the entire amount payable at the stage of ROR and the complainant vide his email dated 19/11/2018 called upon the respondent informing it that he is revoking his request and accordingly directed the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.22,21,818/- paid by him to the respondent along with interest thereon with 18% p.a. from date of receipt of said amounts till payment thereof to the complainant.
The complainant has not stated violation of section 12 of the RERA by showing any false notice /advertisement published by the respondent promoter, due to which he suffered from any sort of loss as contemplated under section 12 of the RERA. Hence, the MahaRERA cannot consider the claim of the complainant under section 12 of the RERA. In addition to this, the complainant has not produced any adverse order passed by any apex court imposing stay on the project.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the MahaRERA is of the view that in absence of any agreed date of possession, the claim of refund sought by the complainant under sections 12 and 18 of the RERA cannot be considered. Therefore, if the complainant is seeking cancellation of the said booking the respondent is entitled to take action in accordance with the terms and conditions of the RFR dated 4-06-2018 signed by both the parties. The respondent after raising various demand letters to the complainants has finally cancelled the said booking on 14- 02-2019 and thereby forfeited the entire amount paid by the complainants in accordance with the terms and conditions of RFR.
Order: In an order dated 21st March 2022, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case and in compliance of principles of natural justice, since the complainant has chosen to exit from the project and the termination has already been done by the respondent, in compliance of principles of natural justice, the respondent promoter is directed to refund the amount to the complainant allottees by deducting the 10% of the amount paid by him (i.e. 10% of the Rs.22,21,818/-) towards the administrative charges within a period of 3 months from the date of this order without any interest considering the Covid-19 pandemic.