Shri Somvir Sharma vs M/s. Revanta Multistate Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.

The present complaint has been filed in Form 'M' on 25th February, 2021 by Shri Somvir Sharma (the Complainant) against M/s. Revanta Multistate Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (the Respondents) seeking a refund of balance amount of Rs.7,82,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs eight two thousands only) as against Rs.10,68,400/- (Rupees Ten Lakh sixty eight thousand four hundred only) paid by him to the Respondents Society towards booking and other costs relating to a 2BHK Apartment + 1 SQ, admeasuring 1175 sq.ft. carpet area in their project "Smart Residency" along with applicable interest as per RERA Rules. The Respondents have already refunded Rs.2,60,600/- (Rupees Two lakh sixty thousands six hundred only) on 17.01.2020.

The brief facts of the case are that the Respondents had launched a project namely "Smart Residency" - a project of M/s Revanta Multistate CGHS Ltd. (hereinafter referred as "Project") located in L Zone, near Dwarka, New Delhi and the Complainant booked a flat of 2 BHK Apartment + 1 SQ admeasuring 1175 sq.ft. carpet area of the flat. The total cost of the flat is Rs.37,25,000/-. The Complainant made payments of Rs 10,68,400/- in 5 installments as per payment details :

The Complainant made a request vide letter dated 20 May, 2018 to the Respondents to surrender his membership and also requested for refund of amounts paid by him. After considering the request of the Complainant, both parties have signed an MoU on 04 January, 2020 for refund of moneys by the Respondents in three instalments. As per MoU, Respondents have refunded Rs.2,60,600/- in three installments in January 2020 but the balance amount of Rs.7,82,000/- has not yet been refunded.

The Complainant thereafter filed the present complaint on 25 February, 2021. The main grievance of the Complainant is that the Respondents assured to complete the project within 36 months but no communication regarding possession of property has been received from the Respondents.

Notice was issued to the Respondents on 31 March, 2021 to file the reply to the complaint and the case was listed for hearing on 11.05.2021. However, due to Corona 19 Pandemic, the reply was filed by Respondents on 10.08.2021 and the case was heard on 19.08.2021. Rejoinder to the reply was filed by Complainant on 30.09.2021 with a copy to the Respondents. Arguments of both the parties were heard on 21.10.2021 and the case was reserved for orders.

The Respondents in their reply submitted that the Respondents are a society registered under Section 7 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 on 02 June, 2014 by a Joint Secretary in the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India acting in his capacity as the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The registration is valid for the NCT of Delhi and the State of Haryana subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the MSCS Act, 2002.

Respondents further stated that it is a society registered under the Multistate Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The recovery of amount is sought mainly on the ground that till date no construction has been initiated on the alleged proposed land of the said society of the Respondents. However, the land parcels have already been submitted with DDA under Land Pooling Policy (LPP) as per MPD-2021. It is submitted that the main reason is that the Respondents had not been returned with any land by the DDA/ concerned department/authorities under the scheme which was to be returned by DDA/Ministry of Urban Development. That the Respondents cannot be held liable for fault which had not been done by the Society .The present complaint may be rejected on this ground alone as the society of the Respondents is registered with Multi-state cooperative Society Act, 2002 and the Complainant may pursue his remedy before an appropriate forum.

Respondent states that complaint is hit by Section 84 of Multi State Cooperative Group Housing Society Act, 2002 and only laws of Multistate Cooperative Society Act, 2002 shall be applied in case of any dispute between the members of the Society. Furthermore, Section 84 of Multistate Cooperative Society Act, 2002 makes it abundantly clear that the dispute between the parties was to be settled before the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Registrar and the decision of the said Arbitrator shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.

While denying the violation of any provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, it is contended by the Respondents that the complaint is not maintainable, as it is filed in Form-M for refund, interest & compensation and not maintainable as per Rule 33 of the NCT of Delhi RERA (General) Rules 2016 as the said Rule has limited jurisdiction and does not cover refund, interest and compensation and the same are under the purview of Adjudicating Officer's jurisdiction (Rule 34, Form N). Hence, in the light of afore-said reasons and submission, the Respondents prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Respondent further submitted that the Complainant became the member of the respondent Society on 03.09.2015 and the provisions of RERD Act, 2016, cannot be applied retrospectively. The Complainant is the member of the Society much prior to the commencement of the said Act. Hence, there is no violation of the provisions of the Act.

Respondent submitted in reply that the transactions between the Complainant and the Respondents is based on membership of society and the present proceedings are barred under law as firstly for the reason that the provisions of the act in general are not applicable on the present transactions as were purely of membership under the Society and the remedy lies before the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, secondly, the act has its own procedure of law, therefore, as per the act, remedy lies under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, hence the present proceedings be dismissed for the aforesaid reason.

Respondent states that the Complainant has invested in the society which is formed under Land Pooling Policy as per MPD-2021, they were further aware that the land parcels submitted to DDA by the Respondents have not yet been returned by the DDA/Ministry of Urban Development and the same is to be provided by the appropriate authority under the "Land Pooling Policy" and the obligations and liabilities of both the parties are defined under the cooperative society act, and since the land has not been returned by the appropriate authority to the Society, till date and the adjudication of the same lies in the Central Registrar of Cooperative Society, per se being competent to try and adjudicate the matter of contractual obligation and therefore, this Authority does not possess jurisdiction under RERD Act, and is not competent to try and adjudicate such matter under law, thus, the present complaint is not maintainable.

Respondents stated that that reliefs claimed by the complainant in the complaint relate to the acts touching the constitution, management or the business of the Multistate Cooperative Society i.e. Respondents and therefore, before seeking any relief against the Respondents in suit for recovery, the complainant by virtue of provision of section 115 of Multistate Cooperative Society puts an embargo for filling the present suit as the complainant is not entitled to institute suit for any relief.

Respondent states that the Complainant is a speculative investor who invested in a society and became member of the society being aware of the pros and cons of the investment and were duly aware of the requirement and obligations under the law and their rights and interest are duly covered and protected under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and Central Registrar of Cooperative Society, for which reason, they should avail the remedy available with them under law by approaching the authority which have jurisdiction and hence, the present proceedings be dismissed.

Respondents further submitted that the present matter is required to be referred to the Arbitrator as per the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. It is further submitted that complicated questions of facts and law are involved in the complaint, which is against society, which are required to be decided by the Central Registrar. It is further stated that the delay in completion of the scheme is due to force majeure reasons, which is beyond the control of the Respondents as the Respondents society is totally dependent upon the progressive actions from the competent authority.

Further Respondents states that the complainant has not been able to pin point the date when the cause of Action arose, this Hon'ble Authority has to decide the date when the cause of action arose and under which provisions of law the relief is sought.

The Complainant submitted in rejoinder that the Respondents are misleading and submissions of Respondents are false and Respondents is very well aware that this Hon'ble Authority has passed adverse order against the Respondent in similar matter earlier also. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Authority has adjudicated against the Respondent in the "Complaint No. 64/2019 (Shri Sunny Sapen Vs. Revanta Multistate CGHS Ltd.)" and "Complaint No. 59/2019 (Shri Kripa Shankar Singh Vs. Revanta Multistate CGHS Ltd.)" and directed the Respondents for returning the entire amount with interest to Complainant.

Complainant says that submission of Respondents are false & denied as the Respondents have violated Sections 11, 12, 18 read with Section 4 of RERD Act 2016 and failed to refund the full amount of the Complainant as agreed under the memorandum of understanding i.e. MOU dated 04.01.2020.

Complainant says that Respondents have accepted the surrender of membership of the Complainant on 4 January 2020 through an irrevocable agreement (i.e. Memorandum of Understanding) entered into between them to refund the amount of Rs.10,42,600/-. The said irrevocable agreement is signed between them, Respondents had even partially complied with the terms of MoU by refunding the first installment of Rs.2,60,600/- on 17 January 2020 to the Complainant but failed to refund the second and third installments. Further in view of doctrine of estoppel the Respondents are estopped from invoking the provision of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. Hence the submission of the Respondents are misplaced and devoid of merits.

Complainant further state that Respondents have failed to deliver the residential flat to the Complainant within reasonable period of 4-5 years as promised and false statements made by the Respondents. The complainant was made to run from pillar to post to surrender his membership and recover his amount when the Respondents failed to deliver the project in time. That the cause of action arose the day when Respondent, enter into agreement with the Complainant on 04 January,2020 to refund the amount.

Complainant surrendered his membership with the Respondent Society on 20.05.2018 as the Complainant was urgently in need of a house for his family and the Respondents has acknowledged the receipt of surrender of his membership.

Deliberately withholding the (2^nd) & (3^rd) installment in terms of MoU cast an obligation on the Respondent under Section18 of RERD Act 2016 to refund the amounts deposited by the Complainant along with interest & compensation to the Complainant without any further delay.

Complainant further in rejoinder prayed before Authority to comply with the terms of the MoU and immediately refund the balance amount i.e. Rs.7,82,000/- along with (18%) interest and compensation for harassment of the complainant and or to pass such orders as this Hon'ble authority deems appropriate in the interest of justice.

I have heard the Ld. Counsels for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

I order that the Respondents M/s Revanta Multistate Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited must pay the balance amount of Rs.7,82,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs eighty two thousand only) and interest @ 9(Nine)% (MCLR+2%) per annum from the date of receipt of each such amount until the date of full payment to Shri Somvir Sharma, the Complainant within a period of 45 days of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

No orders as to costs.