Last Updated on February 19, 2021 by Satish Mishra
Complaint for Execution of RERA orders against Omaxe Pvt.Ltd
Summary-In this post we will discuss about a complaint that has been filed by the complainant seeking execution of order dated 05.03.2019 passed by HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY PANCHKULA
COMPLAINT FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE ORDER passed by the HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY PANCHKULA
Judgement Digest
The present summary will cover and give an overview of the case Rahul vs M/S Omaxe Pvt.ltd at the HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY PANCHKULA and it will give you a brief yet precise outline regarding all the major facts and issues involved in this particular case which basically revolves around Complaint for Execution of Order passed the same Authority on 05.03.2017 for handing over the possession and payment of Delay Interest by the complainant.
FACTS
Rahul……… COMPLAINANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S Omaxe Pvt. Ltd . .RESPONDENT(S)
- Present complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking execution of order dated 05.03.2019 passed by HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY PANCHKULA
- The Order passed directed the Respondent to handover possession of the booked unit by December, 2019 and to issue fresh statement of account showing therein amounts receivables from the complainant and amount of delay interest payable to the complainant.
- In compliance of the said order statement of accounts was filed by respondent and the same was verified by the complainant and found to his
- Amount of delay calculated unto 31.12.2019 was Rs. 4,92,799/-. Which was duly paid by the Respondent.
- The order dated 05.03.2019 also stated that if the respondents do not offer the possession by December, 2019 complainant shall be free to approach the Authority again where-after a further appropriate order shall be
- Respondent was not handed the possession as of 01.2021
ALSO READ- ADJUDICATING OFFICER ORDERS EXECUTION IN RERA PANCHKULA
Issues / Controversy Involved
- The Question before the Authority was regarding the execution of the order dated 05.03.2019.
- The Issue was also related to the handing over the possession and weather the Respondents were liable to pay more
Judgements on Settled Law
· Prakash Chand Arohi versus WS Pivotal Infrastructures Pvt.Ltd.
HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY PANCHKULA held that for a
reasonable delay in completing the project, the compensation as provided for in the agreement shall be paid by the developers, hence the complainant shall be compensated in accordance with the provisions of the agreement.
The HRERA also noted that there is a sharp difference in the opinion of majority and minority regarding the validity of the old contract and the compensation that is to be
granted .The act is still not mature and there are not many presidents to follow up that is why the majority and minority opinion of this case is very crucial to understand .
· Madhu Sareen Versus BPTP ltd
It was held that the compensation is to be calculated according to the Rule 15 of RERA, that sets the compensation to be SBI MCLR + 2% for the entire period of the delay i.e. even before the RERA came into picture, according to them the act is both retrospective and retroactive in it’s nature and hence they disapprove the compensation clause of the original contract between the parties that had set up compensation to be Rs. 5 per square. Feet of total super area for every month of delay.
· Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan & Aleya Sultana & Ors vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd
The Supreme Court held that the flat buyers are entitled to compensation for delayed handing over of possession and for the failure of the developer to fulfil their promises with regard to amenities.
The top court set aside the verdict of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which, on July 2, 2019, had dismissed the complaints of 339 flat buyers by holding that they were not entitled to the compensation in excess of what was stipulated in their flat purchase agreements for delayed possession and the lack of assured amenities.
The Supreme Court Come to the conclusion that the dismissal of the complaint by the NCDRC was erroneous. The flat buyers are entitled to compensation for delayed handing over of possession and for the failure of the developer to fulfil the representations made to flat buyers in regard to the provision of amenities.
- Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Relators suburban Pvt. Ltd. And another Vs Union Of India and another the court has ruled out RERA to be retroactive or retrospective and
hence it cannot undone the arrangements between the buyer and promoter that were concluded prior to enactment of the act, this would lead to chaos .
· Ashish Oberoi vs. Emaar MGF.
The Supreme Court held that All the contract entered into if are valid according to the Indian Contract Act should be enforceable in the eyes of law only the clauses that lead to Unfair Trade Practices should be eliminated by the authority and the authority should not be interfering in the contract just because they do not follow the RERA module.
ALSO READ- EXECUTION OF RERA PANCHKULA ORDERS
Findings of the Authority
- It was noted that the order dated 05.03.2019 directed the Respondent to issue afresh statement of account showing amounts receivables from the complainant and amount of compensation payable by the respondent within 30 days of uploading of this order. The final receivables were amounted Rs. 4,92,799/, which were duly paid by the Respondent to the
- With regards to issue relating to handing over of possession, Learned counsel for the respondent stated that date for completion of the project in question in Registration Certificate, issued under Section 3 of RERA Act, 2016 is 31.12.2021. Therefore, the Respondents will be able to handover possession by that
- As per order under execution, respondent was to pay complainant delay interest payment only for the period from deemed date of possession i.e. 22.08.2017 to December, 2019. This was also brought forward by the
- It was noted that the execution of the order dated 05.03.2019 was completed as the delay Interest Payment from 1.08.2017 to 31.12.2019 were paid to the complainant as per the direction of the
- complainant was directed to again approach this Authority In case respondents did not offer possession to complainant by December, 2019
- Delay interest payments for the period from 31.12.2019 to 31.12.2021 cannot be granted to him vide order currently under execution. With regards to the same complainant is directed to file a fresh
ALSO READ- EXECUTION OF CONSUMER COURT’S ORDER
Conclusion
The HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY PANCHKULA Decided that Execution
proceedings of order dated 05.03.2019 passed by this Authority have been complied with as the Respondents had paid the delay payment Interest as per the order’s direction and as per the Guidelines given in Complaint no. 113/2018- Madhu Sareen Vs BPTP Pvt. Ltd.
If the Complainant wants to peruse the redressal against the Respondent for handing over the possession and for the delay Interest Payment from 31.12.2019 to 31.12.2021 he had to file a fresh complaint with the HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY PANCHKULA .
It was yet another correct decision by the Concerned Authority as there was no direction in their initial order which called for the Delay Interest Payment if the possession was not handed over to the complainant after 31.12.2019.
The Complainant may at any time file a fresh complaint with the Concerned Authority for the handing over the possession.
ALSO READ- EXECUTION BEFORE HARYANA RERA PANCHKULA AUTHORITY AGAINST AARCITY
This post is written by Pushkar Yadav.
For case specific advice, please contact top/best/expert Haryana RERA Panchkula Authority lawyers/advocates who can file your execution petition before the authority.
More on 9988817966
