BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY MUMBAI. COMPLAINT NO: CC006000000023426 Sachin Sharad Ajgaonkar Complainant Versus Nepture Group Respondent. MahaRERA Regn: P51700009783 Coranu Hon'ble Shri Madhav Kulkarni. Appearance: Complainant: In person Respondent Manisha Chandwani, Authorized Representa tive Final Otder 20e November 2018 1. The complainant who had booked a flat with respondent / builder seeks withdrawal from the project and refund of the amount with interest and comPensatioL 2. The complainant has alleged that he booked a flat with the Respondent/Builder. The details of tJrc transaction are missing in the comptaint. They are required to be fished out from the documents placed on record. The agreement is dated 5ft November 2011. The complainant booked Flat No. 003 in Building B-3 in Sector - II in NePtune Swaraiya ComPlex at Ambivali having carpet arca oI 2i3 sq.ft.. The consideration agreed was Rs. 5,N,8fl/ -. Clause 5 in respect of date of delivery of possession is kept blank. The complainant has alleged that respondent is giving false commitment in respect oI delivery of possession. Therefore, the complainant wants tefund of the money that was paid. The exact amount that was Paid is not mentioned an).,where. -5t S /LD 3. The complainant on 29u August 2018 filed an application. He alleged that on 31"t AuSust 2009; he booked a flat by paying Rs. 11,m0/- al1d then on 2'd September 2009 Rs.39,0U/ -. The respondent promised delivery of Poss*sion within 2 years. On 5h November 2011, the respondent demanded Stamp Duty and Regishation charges. Middleman took Rs. 3000/- at that time. The Developer promised delivery of possession within 6 months. False promises were given on 1G17 occasions. The complainant has paid 90% of the amount and the last irstalment was paid in 2015. The builder/Promoter has repaid the money in respect of Section II-C and II-D with 18% interest. The comPlairant had borrowed money with interest in order to pay to the respondent/builder. He is also staying in rental premises. The complainant therelore prayed for refund of money paid by him. 4. The respondent has resisted the complainant by filing say on 29th August 2018. It is denied that the respondent has committed any wrong. It is alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and no cause of action arose for filing of this comPlaint. The resPondent undertook the project Neptune Swarajya which is an alfordable housing Proiect in Kalyan Taluka having more than 50 building and more than 1500 flats on 129 acres of tand. The respondent developed huge infrastructure such as Road Irom Ambivali Station, Sewerage line, Intemal water connection, Electricity Sub- statio& Reservation of Garden, etc. There is lack of these amenities and the proposal for Road fuom Ambivali Station to Proiect is Pending for more than 25 years. The respondent constructed the road and developed pipeline at his own cost. On 31* August 2009 the complainant showed interest in Purchasing the flat for consideration of Rs. 5,00,850/- and dePosit of Rs. 11,000/-. The respondent applied to the Collector, Thane for N.A. permission. After permission was received commencement certificate was issued by KDMC on 13tr June2012 ard the respondent commenced the construction work. The amounts deposited by complainant were approPriated towards Part of \'6 consideration. The registered agreement was executed on 5h Nov. 2011. The conshuction was prolonged due to non-availability of sand, delay in sanction, recession in Real Estate Market and inqeased cost of administration charges and obstsuction in construction of infrastructure. The environmental clearance was received but sewerage line was not inserted by KDMC which is evident Irom letter dated 29i, OcL 20'15. The respondent has completed the project to the extent of 90%. The complainant has purchased the premises for investment purpose. The respondent never gave false promises. The complaint therefore deserves to be dismissed- 5. On the basis of rival contentions of the parties following poinls adse for my determination. I have noted my findings agairut them for the reasons stated below. Points Findings 7. Has the respondent lailed to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant as per agreement without there being reasons beyond his control ? AJfirmative 8. Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs claimed? Affirmative 9. Vfhat order? As per final order Reasons. 5. Point no. 1,2 The complainant has submitted in person that he booked flat in the year 2c09. The respondent promised to deliver possession orally within 2 years. The complainant has so far paid Rs.,4,15,000/- The respondent has submitted in person that he has applied for occupation certificate. Delay has occurred on account of dumping ground issue. The complainant did not take any loan which shows that he has taken the flat f or investment purpose. + 6. The complainant has placed copy of agreement dated 056 Nov. 2011 on record. There is no dispute that complainant had booked the flat on 31.08.2009 by paying Rs. 11,000/- to the respondent. Howevet agreement was executed after 2 years, i.e. on 5e Nov. 2011. Flat No.3 in Bldg. No. & 3 in Sector - tr havin8 carpet area of 233 sq.ft. was agreed to be sold to the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,&50/-. Clause 5 shows that space meant for writing date oI delivery of possession has not been filled and only a line has been drawn. It is the contention of the complainaat that possession was orally promised within 2 years and respondent went on giving false promises. 7. It is Eue that booking was done by the complainant in the year 2009, i.e. before about 9 years and agreement was executed before about 7 years. Considerable period has gone by. Clause 5 provides for reasonable extension of time for delivery of possession under certain circumstances. The respondent has alleged that he undertook the affordable housing scheme which was a large scheme at an under developed place. There was no road connection or water connection or electricity connection from municipality and electricity board. Commencement certificate issued by KDMC dated 18e July 2011 is there on record. The respondent was directed to construct roads, sewerage line, etc. 8. There is a lefter of respondent dated 6.07.20-16 promising delivery of possession by Dec. 2016. There is a letter dated Dec. 2016 seeking apology for not delivering possession by 2016. This clearly shows that resPondent has not kept the word. It was the responsibility of the resPondent to complete the con5huction in all respects and deliver possession as early as possible. 7 years is too long a pedod and promise to deliver possession by end of Dec. 2016 has not been kept. Now, the respondent cannot plead that because of non-cooperation Irom govt. agencies the Proiect was delayed. There is nothing on record to substantiate such contentions. On ^ 1, "" the contrary the record shows that it was the duty of the respondent to make necessary arrangements and complete the proiect. I am therefore of the opinion that respondent has committed breach of the agaeement by not keeping his word and there is no justifiable reason for that. 9 The complainant has placed on record receipts showing payments that were made which are given below: Sr. Date Amount (In No. Rupees) 1 31.08.2009 71,000/ - 2 02.09.2009 39,0U/ - 3 1.2.09.2017 75,728/ - 4 27.12.N't1 7,935/ - 5 1,6.04.2012 75,7 / - 6 24.06,20"12 774/ - 7 ^18.07.2012 L6,732/ - 8 24.06.20^t2 25,043 / - 9 18.07.20-12 2s,043 / - 10 78.07.2012 774/ - 11 18.04.2014 774/ - 12 18.04.2014 25,043/ - 13 22.02.201,4 774/- 14 01,.09.2074 25,043/ - 15 07.09.2014 774/ - 16 13.09.2015 25,043/ - 77 22.02.2074 25,042/ - 18 16.04.2012 71_,935/ - 19 13.09.2075 876/ - Total 3,85,945 / - Many receipts are produced in Duplicate and Triplicate. 10. Thus, the complainant has paid Rs. 3,85945/- to the respondent. The complainant is entitled for refund of this amount witi interest. I therefore, answer Point No. 1 & 2 in the alfirmative and proceed to pass folloyring order. ,lr- \' \D ORDER 6) The comptainant is entitled to withdra$, from the proiect. 7) The respondent to pay Rs. 3,85,945/- to the complainant together with interest at the State Bank of India's highest marginal cost of lending rate plus 2% which come to 10.70% from the date of payments till actual realisatiorL 8) The respondent to pay Rs. 20,000/- as cost of this complainant 9) The complainant to execute cancellation Deed at the cost of the respondent. 10) The respondent to pay the above amouats within 30 days from the date of this order. ')o\b ao Mumbai. (Madhav Kulkami) Date: 20.11.2018 Member & Adiudicating Officer MahaRERA