Ms. Arvinder Kaur Jass vs Diamond Multistate CGHS Ltd. & Anr.

A complaint was filed in FORM „M‟ on 02.11.2023 by Ms. Arvinder Kaur Jass (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‟ or „The Act‟) stating that she booked an apartment in 2017 in the housing project, „Delhi Housing Scheme‟ (hereinafter referred to as „Project‟) promoted by Diamond Multistate CGHS 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 Welcome Letter dated 30.12.2017 confirmed the membership of the Complainant in their proposed “Delhi Housing Scheme” project.

The Complainant submitted that she paid a total of ₹ 8,88,894/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Four Only) to the Respondents in many instalments for the subject flat and is claiming the refund for the same amount.

A preliminary hearing in the case was held on 18.03.2024 and a Notice to the Respondents was issued on 18.10.2025 through registered post and via email.

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

I have perused the documents available on record and heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsel of the Complainant.

In his complaint, the Complainant has claimed a refund of ₹ 8,88,894/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Four Only). However, the Complainant has also mentioned the details of payments made by him to the Respondents as under:

Hence, as per details given by the Complainant, a total payment ₹ 9,16,235 /-(Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Five Only) has been made by him to the Respondents.

The Respondents have not denied these payments. As per copy of receipts/ bank statements enclosed with the complaint, the claim of the Complainant is taken to be ₹ 9,16,235 /- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Five Only).

The Complainant has placed on record copies of Welcome Letter and receipts which clearly show that the Respondents collected money for constructing flats in their project “Delhi Housing Scheme”.

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:

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 @ 10.80% 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 the light of the aforesaid, I consider it appropriate to direct the Respondents, i.e. „Diamond Multistate CGHS Ltd.‟ to refund the entire amount of ₹ 9,16,235 /- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Five Only) to the Complainant, i.e. Ms. Arvinder Kaur Jass 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.