AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A complaint was filed in FORM ‘M’ on 03.12.2024 by Mr. Satish Kumar Ajmera (hereinafter referred to as “Complainant”) under Section 31 r/w Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016(hereinafter, referred to as ‘RE (RD) Act, 2016’ or ‘The Act’) stating that he booked a 3BHK apartment in 2014 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 Complainant has now filed the present complaint, alleging delay and false promises by the Respondents and is seeking refund of the amount paid.
The Respondents through their payment receipts dated 15.04.2015 & 24.06.2015 confirmed the payment of ₹ 7,04,000/- for the said unit.
The Complainant submitted that he paid a total of ₹ 7,04,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Four Thousand Only) to the Respondents in two instalments for the subject flat and is claiming the refund for the same amount.
A preliminary hearing in the case was held on 03.02.2025 and the Ld. Counsel for the Respondents filed their reply on 27.01.2026.
For the sake of convenience, the arguments and submissions made on behalf of the Respondents are summarized as under:
The Respondents launched ‘Antriksh Urban Greek’ project, and the Complainant freely approached and booked a residential apartment by signing the booking application form.
Unfortunately, the project could not be developed owing to government policies and procedural and administrative factors due to which the Respondents could not obtain the ‘Land Transfer Certificate’.
The Respondents are willing to pay the principal amount of ₹ 7,04,000/-(Rupees Seven Lacs Four Thousand Only) to the Complainant.
I 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 ₹ 7,04,000/- has indeed been paid by the Complainant. The Respondents are willing to pay the principal amount of ₹ 7,04,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Four Thousand Only) to the Complainant as admitted liability.
Analysis and Consideration:
A perusal of the documents available on record shows that two receipts were issued by the Respondents to the Complainant as follows:
| S. No. | Date of Receipt | Amount paid |
|---|---|---|
| i. | 15.04.2015 | ₹ 2,00,000/- |
| ii. | 24.06.2015 | ₹ 5,04,000/- |
| TOTAL | ₹ 7,04,000/- |
Hence, total payment of ₹ 7,04,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Four Thousand Only) by the Complainant to the Respondents is a recorded fact and admitted by the Respondents.
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 Complainant intends to withdraw from the said project and is 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:
“Section 18. Return of amount and compensation. -
18(1). If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot, or building,
(a). in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or
(b). due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the 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.”
“Section 12. Obligations of the promoter regarding veracity of the advertisement or prospectus. -
Where any person makes an advance or a deposit on the basis of the information contained in the notice advertisement or prospectus, or on the basis of any model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and sustains any loss or damage by reason of any incorrect, false statement included therein, he shall be compensated by the promoter in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that if the person affected by such incorrect, false statement contained in the notice, advertisement or prospectus, or the model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, intends to withdraw from the proposed project, he shall be returned his entire investment along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and the compensation in the manner provided under this Act.”
From the record presented before me 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 Complainant 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, I am of the view that the Respondents are in contravention of the Sections 18 and 12 of RE (RD) Act, 2016 and as such, the Complainant is entitled to get the refund of the amount paid by him along with the interest at prescribed rate @ 10.75% 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, I consider it appropriate to direct the Respondents, i.e. ‘Antriksh Engicon Pvt. Ltd.’ to refund the entire amount of ₹ 7,04,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Four Thousand Only) to the Complainant, i.e. Mr. Satish Kumar Ajmera within 45 days of issuance of this order along with interest at the rate of 10.75% 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.