HRERA Panchkula Dismisses Refund Claim in La Dimora City Project: Complaint Held Premature
In a recent ruling, the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Panchkula dismissed a homebuyer’s complaint seeking refund, holding that the claim was premature in light of the contractual terms agreed between the parties.
Background of the Case
The complaint was filed by a homebuyer against Lightstone Developers India Pvt. Ltd. in relation to a residential plot in the project:
📍 “La Dimora City, Sector 97, Faridabad”
As per the record:
- Total sale consideration: ₹53.76 lakh
- Amount paid by complainant: ₹18.81 lakh
- Booking amount paid in October 2021
(Page 3)
Key Issues Raised by the Complainant
The complainant alleged:
- Builder collected more than 10% of sale consideration without executing Builder Buyer Agreement (BBA)
- Delay in allotment and possession
- Violation of provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
- Failure to refund despite request for cancellation
The complainant sought:
✔ Refund of entire amount paid
✔ Interest on deposited amount
(Page 6)
Builder’s Defence
The developer contended that:
- A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 16.11.2021 was executed
- As per the MOU, the amount paid was to be adjusted against a future plot from available inventory
- Refund was conditional, not automatic
(Pages 7–8)
Important Contractual Clause
As highlighted in the document:
- If the buyer does not opt for a plot within the stipulated time, refund becomes payable
- Otherwise, the amount remains adjusted for future allotment
(Page 5)
Findings of HRERA
After examining the record, HRERA observed:
✔ Existence of Valid MOU
The complainant had voluntarily entered into an agreement where refund was conditional.
✔ No Proof of Breach Yet
The complainant failed to show that:
- Builder refused allotment from available stock
- Conditions for refund had actually arisen
✔ Binding Nature of Contract
The authority emphasized that:
Parties are bound by contractual terms unless they are illegal or against statutory provisions
(Page 11)
Final Decision
HRERA held that:
- The complaint seeking refund was premature
- No immediate right to refund had arisen
👉 Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed, with liberty to the complainant to seek remedy in future if conditions for refund arise.
(Page 12)
Legal Significance
This ruling highlights several important principles:
✔ Contract Prevails in RERA Matters
Even under RERA, contractual terms like MOU play a crucial role.
✔ Refund Is Not Automatic
Buyers cannot claim refund unless contractual conditions are fulfilled.
✔ Premature Complaints Can Be Dismissed
RERA will not grant relief if the cause of action has not yet arisen.
Key Takeaway for Homebuyers
Before filing a RERA complaint:
- Carefully review MOU / Agreement clauses
- Check if refund conditions are triggered
- Ensure there is actual breach by builder
Conclusion
The HRERA Panchkula ruling in the La Dimora City case reinforces that legal remedies under RERA must align with contractual obligations. While the law protects buyers, it also respects agreements voluntarily entered into, making it essential for buyers to understand the fine print before seeking relief.
More on 99888-17966
