In this post we will discuss about Punjab RERA complaint against RKM Housing Ltd. wherein PRERA after considering all the facts of the matter held that the complainant has undeniably a statutory right for obtaining interest for every month of delay from the respondent at the rate prescribed in Rule-15 of the RERA Rules, 2017.
Complaint to Grant Refund of the amount paid for the purchase of the property with interest plus compensation for mental agony
Also Read- Manvinder Singh vs M/S R.K.M. Housing Ltd. on 21 May, 2018
The present summary will cover and give an overview of the case Mrs. Naiya Gill vs RKM HRKM Housing Ltd Before PRERA 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 Complainant to grant Interest on the amount paid for the flat whose possession was not offered even after almost a delay of 8 years.
This case is based on the provision of the RERA Act, where a person booked an property and paid some considerate amount against the booking, as well as the advance for the property but there was a long delay on the part of the Respondents to handover of the property.
This is an Complaint to seek the full refund of the amount paid for the consideration of the property with interest and compensation for all the mental agony the Respondent gave her.
Also Read- RKM Housing Popular judgments in IndianKanoon.
Facts of the Case
PUNJAB REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Mrs. Naiya Gill
COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
RKM Housing Ltd
. . RESPONDENT
- Complaint are that the complainant booked plot measuring 250 sq yards with Sherwood officers Society, Sector 113, Mohali on 12.06.2011 and as per para 9 of the allotment letter dated 07.08.2011, the possession of the plot was to be delivered within one and half year. The complainant was enrolled as an ordinary member vide No. 171 and she paid the amount of Rs.26,06,000/- against total sale consideration of Rs.34,50,OOO/- vide receipts Annexure C7 to Cl 1. Instead of delivering possession of the plot to the complainant, the Sherwood Society entered into MOU dated 15.07.2014 with RKM Housing Ltd, the Present respondents for taking over of the project and the respondents issued a revised allotment letter on 17.11.2014 with an undertaking to deliver the possession within 20 months from the date of allotment letter.
- The respondents failed to deliver the possession within the stipulated period. The complainant shifted to Canada in the year 2018 with her family, where his husband died of illness on 23.01.2020 and now the complainant did not have any source of income. Moreover, the complainant having permanently shifted to Canada, she did not have the necessity of plot in question. It is further the case of the complainant that as the respondents have violated the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, the complainant was entitled to refund, interest, compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
ALSO READ- PRAKASH KAUR V. RKM HOUSING LIMITED
Issues Involved
- Is the Complainant entitled to Interest on the amount paid by her towards the property even though the different company had taken over the project and compensation for all the mental agony she incurred.
Judgement on Settled Law
- Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of Neel KamaZ Realtors Suburban Pvt Ltd and another Vs. Union of India and others, writ petition No.2737 of 2017 decided on 06.12.2017. The ratio of the said Authority was that unilateral contracts of the prior period not being in accordance with the provisions of the Act are not enforceable to that extent and the payment of interest has to be from the date of the payment till realization.
- 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.
ALSO READ- CONSUMER COMPLAINT AGAINST RKM HOUSING LIMITED
- 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 .
ALSO READ- Real Estate Regulatory Authority – RERA Punjab
- 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.
Also Read- CONSUMER COMPLAINT AGAINST RKM HOUSING Limited
Findings of the Court
- RERA, Punjab after hearing the learned representative for the complainant and after going through the documents even though an ex-parte evidence was brought on record by the complainant held that the Act came into existence after the first transaction dated 24.06.2011, but, the project was ongoing and had not been completed. Thus, the present project relates to a period prior to coming into existence of the Act.
- This Authority after hearing the pleading of the Complainant with records like letter of membership, letter of allotment, application letter and copy of receipts settled the fact that Complainant had booked plot measuring 250 square yard with Sherwood Officers Society, (Regd) Landran, Sector 113, Mohali. As per para 9 of the allotment letter dated 07.08.2011 issued by said society, the possession of the plot was to be delivered within one and half year and even paid an amount of Rs.26,06,OOO/- against total sale consideration of Rs.34,50,OOO/.
- It has also come on record that the above said society did not deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant, rather, entered into MOU dated 15.07.2014 with RKM Housing Ltd, the present respondents for taking over of the project.
This Authority also noticed that in allotment letter issues by the respondents on 17.11.2014, they undertook to deliver the possession within 20 months from the date of allotment letter. However, the respondents failed to deliver the possession within the stipulated period of 20 months.
ALSO READ- PRIMARY ESTATES & DEVELOPERS CONSUMER RERA COMPLAINT
- When discussing the compensation claimed by the Complainant for her mental agony and for the costs incurred for pursuing legal action, this Authority stated that as compensation is not defined under the RERA therefore in the instant case, the compensation can be granted under the heads pecuniary and non-pecuniary and Section 72 of the Act speaks about the factors to be taken into consideration while adjudicating the quantum of compensation.
This court keeping in view all the factors enunciated under Section 72 of the Act stated that the extent of mental agony and harassment can also be gauged from the prolonged delay for delivery of possession which has not yet been delivered and as such.
ALSO READ-PRERA ORDERS & JUDGEMENTS
Conclusion
PRERA after considering all the facts of the matter held that the complainant has undeniably a statutory right for obtaining interest for every month of delay from the respondent at the rate prescribed in Rule-15 of the RERA Rules, 2017.
According to the Proviso attached to Section l8 of the RERA envisage that where an allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act.
In view of the above provisions of the Act, the respondent was duty bound to offer the possession of the plot in question within reasonable period. As such, on account of non-delivery of possession, the respondent were liable to refund the amount of Rs 26,04,000/.
ALSO READ- RAJWAT KAUR VS R.K.M. HOUSING LTD. ON 8 MAY, 2019
On the fact whether the complainant is entitled to any interest on the amount paid by her to the respondent or not. The fact of the matter remains that the respondent has been using the amount so paid by the complainant since the payments, as such, the respondent is liable to refund the above said amount along with interest therefore, is entitled the return of principal amount of Rs. 26,06,000/- along with interest at the prescribed rate as per Rule 16 of the Act i.e. State Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate (as on today) plus 2% from the dates on which the respective payments were made to the respondent till realization.
PRERA Keeping in view all the factors enunciated under Section 72 of the Act, held that the extent of mental agony and harassment can also be gauged from the prolonged delay for delivery of possession which has not yet been delivered and as such, Therefore it is of the considered view that the complainant is held entitled for compensation under all the heads i.e. Mental agony, litigation expenses etc to the extent of Rs.75,OOO/-.
It is a just and reasonable judgement by the PRERA by granting the Complainant with the consideration amount paid by her with interest and compensation for her mental agony as the Complainant received the first allotment letter in August 2011 and still haven’t received the possession of the property till march 2021 with almost a delay of 8 years.
The Complainant could have used the that money for investment of her personal use if she hadn’t paid it for the consideration of the property. But in meanwhile the Complainant not even suffered her husband’s demise but didn’t even get the possession of the property.
ALSO READ- HOW TO FILE COMPLAINT IN PANCHKULA-RERA
This post is written by Pushkar Yadav
For case specific advice on real estate matters related to delay compensation, delay interest one may contact top/best expert Rera Lawyers in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar Mullanpur Baltana.
More on 99888-17966.
This post covers topics related to punjab rera website, punjab rera act, rera punjab cause lis,t rera punjab case status, rera punjab judgements, rera complaint format pdf, rera punjab agent list, rera punjab chairman.
