BEFORE THE
      MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
                        MUMBAI

                   COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000110702


Abhishek Rajendra Vispute                                    ..Complainant

    Versus

KARRM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.                               ..Respondent

MahaRERA Regn. No. P51700008284

                                    Coram:
                                    Hon’ble Shri Madhav Kulkarni.
                                    Adjudicating Officer, MahaRERA.

                                    Appearance:
                                    Complainant: In person
                                    Respondents :Absent


                   O R D E R BLEOW REVIEW APPLICATION
                   FILED BY COMPLAINANT ON 20.02.2021
                             (Dated 16.03.2021)

   1. Final order in this matter was passed on 09.01.2021 and respondent /

      promoter was directed to pay Rs.31,62,418/- to the complainant / allottee

      with interest.   Now the complainant has alleged that the order may be

      reviewed because complainant had sought loan from DHFL under 25:75

      scheme as per MOU dated 17.04.2015 which was revoked            in view of

      change in the booking. The complainant had prayed for refund of

      Rs.35,20,053/- and rent from 01.06.2015 and direction to respondent to

      foreclose home loan and impose penalty on respondent.



                                       1
2. In the first instance there are powers conferred to rectify clerical and

  arithmetical mistakes u/s 39 of RERA on the Adjudicating officer by

  resolution of the authority. But no powers to review have been conferred

  on the AO. Respondent in this complaint, is Karrm Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

  and DHFL was not joined as a respondent by the complainant.                      AO has

  powers only to determine compensation u/s 12, 14, 18 and 19. The price

  of the flat, agreed, was Rs.37,08,336/-.     Respondent has already been

  directed to refund the entire amount received from complainant including

  the loan amount. Therefore, there is no question of giving any direction to

  the financer who is not a party in this complaint. Parties will be bound by

  the terms of their agreement. Consequently, there is no merit in this

  application. I therefore, pass following order:



                                 ORDER

     1. Review application stands rejected.

     2. No order as to costs.




                                                                       Digitally signed by
                                                    Madhav Vitthal Madhav Vitthal Kulkarni
                                                                   Date: 2021.03.17
                                                    Kulkarni       16:38:55 +05'30'

                                                    (Madhav Kulkarni)
  Mumbai                                            Adjudicating Officer
  Date : 16.03.2021                                      MahaRERA




                                     2