Abha Singh & Anr. vs M/s Antriksh Engicon Pvt. Ltd.

A complaint was filed in FORM „M‟ on 22.02.2024 by Ms. Abha Singh and Sh. Arun Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred to as “Complainants”) under Section 31 r/w Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016(hereinafter, referred to as „RE (RD) Act‟ or „The Act‟) stating that they booked a 2BHK apartment in 2015 in the housing project, „Antriksh Urban Greek‟ (hereinafter referred to as „Project‟) promoted by Antriksh Engicon Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Respondents”) in L zone, Dwarka, New Delhi. The Complainants have now filed the present complaint, alleging delay and false promises by the Respondents and are seeking refund of the amount paid.

The Complainants submitted that they paid a total of Rs. 18,48,200/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Only) to the Respondents for the subject flat and are claiming the refund for the same amount.

A preliminary hearing in the case was held on 08.04.2024 and a notice to the Respondents was issued on 03.03.2025 through registered post and on 03.03.2025 via email.

For the sake of convenience, the arguments and submissions made on behalf of the Respondents are summarized as under:

We have perused the documents available on record and heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsels of both the parties.

At the argument stage, Ld. Counsel for Respondents admitted that Rs. 18,48,200/- has indeed been paid by the Complainants to the Respondents and they are willing to pay the principal amount of Rs. 18,48,200/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Only)to the Complainants as admitted liability.

A perusal of the documents available on record shows that four receipts were issued by the Respondents to the Complainants as follows:

Hence, total payment of Rs. 18,48,200/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Only)by the Complainants to the Respondents is a recorded fact and admitted by the Respondents.

The Complainants have placed on record copies of Cheques which clearly show that the Respondents collected money for constructing flats in their project “Antriksh Urban Greek”.

The RE (RD) Act, 2016 has been enacted to induce professionalism and standardization in the real estate sector, paving the way for catalyzing investments and accelerating growth of the sector in the long run. To achieve these objectives, the Act created a Regulatory Authority to supervise the conception, initiation and completion of a real estate project. The RE (RD) Act, 2016 is a special law enacted to address issues in the real estate sector. Therefore, all disputes between homebuyers/allottees and promoters/developers relating to any real estate project covered under RE (RD) Act of 2016, can be raised before the concerned Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). Section 79 of the RE (RD) Act, 2016 even bars jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority is empowered under the Act to determine. Moreover, Section 89 of RE (RD) Act, 2016 says that provisions of this Act shall have an overriding effect on anything inconsistent in any other law in force.

It must be appreciated that the statement of objects and reasons of RE(RD) Act, 2016 clearly states that the Act attempts to balance the interests of consumers and promoters by imposing certain responsibilities on both. It also seeks to establish symmetry of information between the promoter and purchaser, enhance transparency of contractual conditions, set minimum standards of accountability and a fast-track dispute resolution mechanism.

An allottee/house buyer can seek refund of amount invested with promoter under Section 18 of RE(RD) Act, 2016, if the promoter fails to complete project by the date specified in Agreement to Sale with interest including compensation and also under Section 12 of RE(RD) Act, 2016 if he/she was misled by any information furnished by promoter with regard to the proposed project either through advertisement or otherwise.

In the present complaint, the Complainants intend to withdraw from the said project and are seeking refund of the amount paid to Respondents in respect of subject unit for delay under Section 18(1) on account of delay and misrepresentation of facts under Section 12 of the Act which read as under:

From the record presented before us it is clear that the Respondents not only failed to hand over the unit but even start the project.

The Respondents also failed to inform the Complainants that they don‟t have proper land for registering the Project. This amounts to withholding the information and misleading the allottees.

The law is well settled that the allottees/homebuyers hold an unqualified right to seek refund of the amount with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf. The legislature has taken a conscious decision to cast an obligation upon the promoter to refund the amount on demand along with interest at rate prescribed. It has also been held through the recent judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the Regulatory Authority has exclusive jurisdiction to direct refund of the amount, and interest on the refund amount to the allottees. (Vide: Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni and Another, 2020 (10) SCC 783, and Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP And Ors. LL 2021 SC 641).

From the documents on record and submissions made by the Ld. Counsels for both the parties, we are of the view that the Respondents are in contravention of the Sections 18 and 12 of RE (RD) Act, 2016 and as such, the Complainants are entitled to get the refund of the amount paid by them along with the interest at prescribed rate @ 10.80% p.a. (i.e., MCLR plus 2%) as per provisions of Section 18 and 12 of RE (RD) Act, 2016 read with Rule 15 of the National Capital Territory of Delhi Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (General) Rules, 2016.

In light of the aforesaid, we consider it appropriate to direct the Respondents, i.e. „Antriksh Engicon Pvt. Ltd.‟ to refund the entire amount of Rs. 18,48,200/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Only) to the Complainants, i.e. Ms. Abha Singh and Sh. Arun Kumar Singh within 45 days of issuance of this order along with interest at the rate of 10.80% per annum (i.e., MCLR+2%) from the date of payment of each sum until the date of its actual return.

The case is disposed of accordingly.

No orders as to costs.