Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority says it has no power to hear complaints, in multiple cases
Gurgaon: Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRera) has quashed a set of complaints lodged by homebuyers and residents, kubcing that the grievances fell out of its purview or the allottees had already obtained statutory remedy in earlier cases.
In another, the Authority dismissed a plea from Anju Rani, who lives in Ardee City, to refund Rs 75,000 maintenance security deposit she paid with her home on the premise that it was an illegal transaction between two private parties per se and therefore not covered under the promoter–allottee relationship as provided for in the Rera Act of 2016. Rani contended that the deposit was refundable once the maintenance services were transferred to the municipal authority, and that all dues has been cleared in 2022.
But the respondents argued that the maintenance agency was not a “promoter” as defined in the Act and that matter involved property deal between private parties.
The Authority found, agreeing with the respondents, that the matter was civil in nature and beyond its jurisdiction.
In another matter, adjudicating officer Rajender Kumar rejected a plea of Raj Kumar Chugh for more compensation in lieu of delayed possession in the Ansal Highland Park project at Sector 103 that was developed by Identity Build-tech.
Chugh claimed over Rs 53 lakh as damages including for mental agony, litigation expenses and alleged loss of rent. However, the authority said that in a previous order issued on Sept 24, 2021, the Authority had already ordered the developer to pay interest at Rs.9.3% per annum for each month of delay from April 2017 until possession is offered.
Under Section 18 of the Rera Act, Kumar concluded, an allottee who does not withdraw from the project is entitled to interest for delay in possession but not separate compensation for the same cause.
There was similar line of reasoning used in two complaints against Delhi resident Sandeep Bansal and developer IREO concerning projects in Gurgaon.
The allottee Bansal in two different complaints sought more compensation for delays in the IREO City project in Sector 60 and the IREO Victory Valley project in Sector 67 as well as claims of rentals loss and harassment.
The Authority, however, rejected both submissions stating that as interest had been awarded to the allottee already for the period of delay (including 10.4% per annum also as held in an order passed in 2018) and the allottee was not withdrawing from the projects, further compensation cannot be given again and afresh by treating them under new cause of action. In all the cases, HRera emphasised that the framework is inclusive of interest for delay only when the buyers/allottees remain invested in a project, and other compensation is usually relevant only when buyers leave a project or create grounds to file separate legal claims. The complaints were all dismissed and the files ordered consigned to the record room.
Source :- Times of India
