Last Updated on May 24, 2024 by Satish Mishra
Builder not liable for compensation if delay is by Government Department.
In this post we will discuss about the case of Ultratech developers wherein the buyer was granted interest for the period of delay but no compensation was awarded because the respondent was not responsible for delay.
Rajat Chawla v. M/s Ultratech Township Developers Pvt. Ltd.
NAME OF THE AUTHORITY- Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula
DATE OF DECISION- 17th October, 2018
NAME OF THE PARTIES-
- Complainants-
Rajat Chawla
- Respondents-
M/s Ultratech Township Developers Pvt. Ltd.
TIMELINE-
- 21st August, 2015- The builder–buyer agreement was made, possession to be delivered 30 months from the date of the
- 24th July, 2017- Respondents applied for the certificate of occupation.
- 21st February, 2018- Possession of the flat was promised to the complainant by the respondent.
- 17th July 2018- The department concerned with the delivery of certificate of occupation, delayed the same and delivered on this date.
ALSO READ-DELAY COMPENSATION IN HRERA PANCHKULA
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS-
The present case holds the following set of facts; the complainant had booked for a flat in the project owned by the respondent known as the “New World Residency” which was situated in Karnal. The complainant was allotted a flat by the respondent. The total sale was fixed at about Rs.63 lakhs for which the complainant had deposited about Rs.51 lakhs at early March. The possession was assured to the complainant by early 2018. The respondent failed to deliver the same as per time. The present suit is a prayer of the complainant claiming the refund of the deposited money along with interest.
COMPLAINANT’S ARGUMENTS/ EVIDENCES-
The Complainant in the present case has prayed for the refund of money, solely based on the material facts of the case, the complainant had booked for the flat back in 2015, and was promised the delivery of possession for the same in the year 2018, after 30 months post the execution of the agreement. But, the respondents failed to deliver the possession and hence the Complainant submitted that they were entitled to receiving the deposited money of about Rs.51 lakhs back along with the interest that is due.
ALSO READ-COVERAGE OF PROJECTS EXISTING BEFORE HRERA
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS/ EVIDENCES-
The respondent’s contended that the occupation certificate that was applied for in the year 2017. The department of the government that was concerned for the same issued the certificate for occupation only in 2018. It was further submitted by the Respondent’s that the builder-buyers agreement was executed between the parties in the year 2015 and it was agreed between both the parties that the delivery of possession would be executed within a period of 30 months. The Respondents submitted that they had applied for the certificate of occupation in 2017 and the delay was on behalf of the government department. Therefore, there was no delay on their part in issuing for the occupation certificate.
The Respondents vehemently submitted that they had applied for the certificate of occupation on time and they should not be held responsible for the delay caused by the government agencies. The Respondents have resisted the claim for the refund stating that they had completed their project on time and the concerned department from the government was responsible for the delay. They submitted that the complainant’s abstract plea for a refund cannot be made permissible after the offer possession already being made to the complainant.
CONTROVERSY INVOLVED FOR ADJUDICATION-
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the refund of deposit along with interest from the respondent’s for the delay in the transfer of possession.
FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITY-
The Authority after having relied on the necessary facts and the circumstances of the case and the evidences at hand, they held that respondent had already made an offer for possession to the complainant. So, very evidently it is not possible to allow for a refund of the money deposited in the year 2017.
However, the Authority also noted that the respondents had in the terms of the agreement entered to with the complainant, stated that they would deliver the possession within 30 months. Therefore, the respondents were under a duty to complete the project on time and deliver the possession within the actual stipulated time after obtaining all the legal approvals from the competent authorities.
The members of the Authority held that the respondent cannot just waive off his liability for the delay that occurred on the part of the concerned department of the government. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the authority held that the respondent is liable to pay to the complainant a rate as prescribed under Rule 15 of the HRERA, 2015, that is, The State Bank of India Highest Marginal Cost Landing Rate with 2% from the date of possession till the actual when the possession was granted to the complainant.
The respondents were also required to supply a well-detailed statement of all the amounts of all the demands of payment that he would be making when the complainant would be acquiring the possession. The complainant in a case, where a demand that is not payable is raised, has a liberty to file for a fresh complaint.
ALSO READ-HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH STAY ON HRERA AUTHORITY PANCHKULA GURUGRAM
ORDER-
However, looking at the facts and circumstances at hand, the Chairman of the Authority held that the Respondent was not responsible for the delay and therefore, they are not required to pay for any compensation as prescribed under Rule 15 of the RERA Rule. The Chairman further held that, even if the respondents did cause a delay, as per Clause 11.3 of the agreement enforced between both the parties , there would be a specific remedy available in the unfortunate event of delay.
Also Read- Haryana RERA Panchkula Complaint Ultratech Township Developers Pvt Ltd
In complaint no. 92 of 2020, before the Adjudicating Officer, Court held Sameer Mahawar versus M.G. Housing Pvt. Ltd passed by Appellate Tribunal, Haryana is judgment in rem not in personam. Thus the judgment bind only litigating parties and not everyone have similar facts of the case. Thus on the score of maintainability complaint was dismissed.
In RERA-PKL 1079/2018 Ultratech Township Developers Pvt. Ltd. were disputing the service of notice and court rejected their contentions and upheld cost imposed.
Also Read- Dr.Saroj Katyal vs Ultratech Township Developers … on 19 May, 2017
Builder is liable to abide provisions of Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 and all flats have to be registered along with declaration under this act. Failure to do so will invite penal actions to the builder. Roof top water harvesting system is governed under Haryana Building Code, 2017. Occupation certificate to be granted by Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana.
This post was written by Haritha Dhinakarn
For case specific advice on real estate matters, one may contact top/best expert Punjab Haryana RERA Appeal Lawyers in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar Mullanpur Baltana
More on 99888-17966.
