National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rupali Bahl vs M/S. Ireo Grace Realtech Private ... on 23 January, 2023
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 107 OF 2019 1. RUPALI BAHL ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. IREO GRACE REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED & 4 ORS. Having its R/O at:C-4,MALVIYA NAGAR,(1ST FLOOR)
NEW dELHI-110017
2. M/s Precision Realtors (P). Ltd. HAVING ITS R/O at:305,KANCHAN HOUSE
KARAMPURA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
NEW DELHI-110015
3. M/s BLUE PLANET INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS R/O:40/16,EAST PATEL NAGAR,
NEW DELHI
4. M/s MADEIRA CONBUILD PVT. LTD. HAVING IIITS R/O:304,KANCHAN HOUSE,(3RD FLOOR)
KARAMPURA COMMERCAIL COMPLEX
NEW DELHI-110015
5. M/S GLOBAL ESTATE HAVING ITS R/O: G-23,ASHOK VIHAR ,
PHASE-I
DELHI-110052
...........Opp.Party(s) CONSUMER CASE NO. 1301 OF 2017 1. HEMANT UPADHYAYA S/o. Sh. Krishna Kumar Upadhyaya, R/o. M-5, Satyawati Colony, Ashok Vihar, Phase - III, New Delhi - 110 052. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. 304, Kanchan House, Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110 015. ...........Opp.Party(s) CONSUMER CASE NO. 1302 OF 2017 1. YASH PAL NARANG S/o. Shri. P.L. Narang, R/o. BJ-15, West Shalimar Bagh, (Near Jaspal Kaur Public School) New Delhi - 110 088. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. 304, Kanchan House, Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110 015. ...........Opp.Party(s) CONSUMER CASE NO. 1322 OF 2017 1. RAHUL KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR,
R/O:- A-3/225, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110 063 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. IREO GRACE REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 304, KANCHAN HOUSE, KARAMPURA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110 015 2. M/S IREO GRACE REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ALSO HAVING ITS PROJECT AT :IREO CAMPUS, SECTOR-59, NEAR BEHRAMPUR, GURGAON-122 001, HARYANA ...........Opp.Party(s) CONSUMER CASE NO. 1400 OF 2017 1. RAM AVTAR S/o.Balbir Singh
R/o. LGF 21-E,
Sushant Shopping Arcade, Sushant Lok-I, Gurgaon Haryana ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. IREO GRACE REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED & 2 ORS. 304, Kachan House,
Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110015 Delhi 2. . ., . . 3. . . . . ...........Opp.Party(s) CONSUMER CASE NO. 1698 OF 2017 1. JASWINDR KAUR & ANR. D-8/1, Model Town, New Delhi-110009 Delhi 2. Mr. Karanveer Singh D-8/1, Model Town, New Delhi-110009 Delhi ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. 304, Kanchan House, Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110015 Delhi ...........Opp.Party(s) CONSUMER CASE NO. 1699 OF 2017 1. SUSHIL GOEL & ANR. S/o Shri Kunj Behari Goel,
R/o #49029 Wedge Grass Ter,
Fremont (CA, USA),
94539, United States 2. Abhilasha Goyal W/o Sh. Sushil Goel,
R/o #49029 Wedge Grass Ter,
Fremont (CA, USA),
94539 Unites States ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. Having its Registered Office At
304, Kanchan House,
Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110 015 ...........Opp.Party(s) CONSUMER CASE NO. 196 OF 2019 1. ANKUR PASARI R/o S-319, Greater Kailash Part-II, New Delhi - 110015 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. & ANR. R/o 304, Kanchan House, Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110015 2. M/s Precision Realtors (P). Ltd. R/o 305, 3rd Floor, Kanchan House, Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110001 ...........Opp.Party(s) CONSUMER CASE NO. 1972 OF 2018 1. NEERAJ SURI & ANR. S/O SHRI JAGMOHAN SURI
R/O 335, SECTOR-I,
PKT - 1,
DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075 2. SHVETAL MISHRA D/O SHRI GHANSHAM MISHRA
R/O 218, SECTOR-46, FARIDABAD-121001 HARYANA ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. & ANR. THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
REGD. OFFICE AT:
C-4, 1ST FLOOR,
MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110017 2. M/S PRECISION REALTORS (P) LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
REGD. OFFICE AT:
305, 3RD FLOOR,
KANCHAN HOUSE,
KARAMPURA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110015 ...........Opp.Party(s) CONSUMER CASE NO. 2282 OF 2017 1. KANWARDEEP SINGH S/O SH. IQBAL SINGH
R/O E-454, GROUND FLOOR,
GREATER KAILASH-II, NEW DELHI-10048 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. REGD. OFFICE AT:
304, KANCHAN HOUSE,
KARAMPURA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110015 ...........Opp.Party(s) CONSUMER CASE NO. 2476 OF 2017 1. MANOJ KUMAR BAHRI ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. Having Its Registered Office At:
304, Kanchan House, Karampura Commercial Complex,
New Delhi-110015. ...........Opp.Party(s) CONSUMER CASE NO. 2497 OF 2017 1. JINENDER KUMAR JAIN & ANR. S/O PREM CHAND JAIN
R/O I A, STREET NO.6,
KUNDAN NAGAR,
(2ND FLOOR),
LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110092 2. JUHI JAIN W/O JINENDER KUMAR JAIN
R/O I A, STREET NO.6,
KUNDAN NAGAR,
(2ND FLOOR),
LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110092 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. REGD. OFFICE AT:
304, KANCHAN HOUSE,
KARAMPURA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110015 ...........Opp.Party(s) CONSUMER CASE NO. 2795 OF 2017 1. SHEKHAR BHATNAGAR S/O SH RAVIKANT BHATNAGAR
R/O 10194, ATS ADVANTAGE,
INDRAPURAM, GHAZIABAD-201014 UTTAR PRADESH ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S.IREO GRACE REAL TECH (P) LTD. REGD. OFFICE AT:
304, KANCHAN HOUSE,
KARAMPURA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110015 ...........Opp.Party(s) CONSUMER CASE NO. 2796 OF 2017 1. SARITA GOEL W/O NARESH KUMAR GOEL
CORRESPONDING ADDRESS:
3889, ROSHANARA ROAD,
SUBZI MANDI, NEW DELHI-110007 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. IREO GRACE REAL TECH PVT. LTD. REGD. OFFICE AT:
304, KANCHAN HOUSE,
KARAMPURA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110015 ...........Opp.Party(s) CONSUMER CASE NO. 554 OF 2017 1. VINEET KAPILA S/o. Late C.L. Kapila, R/o. A4-C/24, Janak Puri, New Delhi - 110 058. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. IREO GRACE REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED 304, Kanchan House, Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110 015. ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Deepak Kr. Khushalani, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Kumar and Mr. Ram Avtaar,
Complainant in person
Mr. Aditya Parolia, Advocate
Ms. Sumbul Ismail, Advocate
Ms. Priya, Advocate
Mr. Subhash Oberoi, Advocate
Mr. Varun Bhandari, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Mr. Sameer Chaudhary, Advocate
: Mr. Rahul Ahuja , Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
Advocate, Ms. Ruchi Kumar, Mr. Chaitanya
Bansal, Advocates
Ms. Sadhvi Swaroup, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Lamba, Advocate
Mr. Sunil Mund, Advocate with
Ms. Archana Yadav, Advocate for OP-3
Dated : 23 Jan 2023 ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kr. Khushalani, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Sameer Chaudhary, Advocate, for the opposite parties.
2. Above bunch of the complaints have been filed against same opposite parties in respect of same project "The Corridors". The complainants in these complaints sought for the relief of refund while the opposite party claimed for forfeiture of "earnest money" as such these complaints are decided together. For appreciating the controversy between the parties, the facts of CC/107/2019 are mentioned in the judgment. Necessary facts of the complaints are given in a table below:-
COMPLAINT NO.
COMPLAINANT NAME
UNIT NO.
DATE OF BOOKING
TOTAL PAYMENT
CC/107/2019
Rupali Bahl
CD-B1-09-903
14.03.2013
Rs.5855264/-
CC/196/2019
Ankur Pasari
CD-A5-10-1002
01.05.2014
Rs.6605147/-
CC/554/2017
Vineet Kapila
CD-C5-03-303
18.05.2013
Rs.2458000/-
CC/1301/2017
Hemant Upadhyaya
CD-C10-03-304
22.03.2013
Rs.5590920/-
CC/1302/2017
Yash Pal Narang
CD-C8-08-801
22-03-2013
Rs.5486965/-
CC/1322/2017`
Rahul Kumar
CD-C4-10-1001
14.03.2013
Rs.9553879/-
CC/1400/2017
Ram Avtar
CD-A9-08-802
04.03.2013
Rs.3700000/-
CC/1698/2017
Jaswinder Kaur & Karanveer Singh
CD-C-8-09-904
01.03.2013
Rs.4078437/-
CC/1699/2017
Sushil Goel & Abhilasha Goyal
CD-C11-12-1203
08.03.2013
Rs.6731802/-
CC/1972/2018
Neeraj Suri & Shvetal Mishra
CD-C7-11-1101
14.05.2013
Rs.2457910/-
CC/2282/2017
Kanwardeep Singh
CD-A5-14-1402
22.03.2013
Rs.8190991/-
CC/2476/2017
Manoj Kumar Bahri
CD-A6-03-302
25.03.2013
Rs.9554400/-
CC/2497/2017
Jitender Kumar Jain & Juhi Jain
CD-A5-04-404
05.03.2013
Rs.3000000/-
CC/2795/2017
Shekhar Bhatnagar
CD-C3-01-102
08.03.2013
Rs.5606804/-
CC/2796/2017
Sarita Goel
CD-A7-02-201
13.03.2013
Rs.6199627/-
3. Rupali Bahl has filed CC/107/2019, for directing the opposite parties to (i) refund Rs.5855264/- with interest @20% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of actual payment, (ii) pay Rs.500000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost; and (iii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. In CC/107/2019, the complainant has stated that the opposite parties were companies, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. They were engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. Opposite parties-2 to 5 were the owners of the project land. Under a Collaboration Agreement dated 05.03.2013, between the opposite parties, the work of development, construction and sale etc. of the group housing project was assigned to IREO Grace Realtech Private Limited (the developer). The developer launched a group housing project, in the name of "The Corridors" at villages Dhumaspur and Maidwas, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector-67-A, Gurgaon, in the year 2012 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. The developer invited booking applications and started collecting money before grant of development licence. The complainant approached the developer and inquired about the price of the flat. The developer informed that Rs.8750/- per sq.ft. as basic sale price the flat which included one car parking space, Rs.327.91 per sq.ft. as Development Charges, Rs.100/- per sq.ft. as Interest Free Maintenance Security, Rs.50/- per sq.ft. as Interest Bearing Replacement Fund and Rs.2.5 lacs towards club membership charges (optional). The complainant booked a 2BHK + SQ Flat on 14.03.2013 and deposited booking amount of Rs.1450000/-. Thereafter, the complainant deposited Rs.1250000/- on 11.05.2013. The developer raised demand of Rs.967044/- and wrote reminders dated 14.05.2013 and 28.05.2013. The complainant raised protest against this demand. Then the developer asked to deposit this amount as it had already been generated and assured that it would be adjusted in future instalment. Then the complainant deposited Rs.967044/- on 12.06.2013. The developer issued Allotment Offer Letter on 07.08.2013, allotting Unit No. CD-B1-09-903, super area 1892.09 sq.ft. (which was size of 3BHK). Along with allotment letter, payment plan was supplied, in which, basic sale price @Rs.9400/- per sq.ft. and Preferential Location Charge @Rs.327.91 per sq.ft. were mentioned. The complainant inquired in this respect, then the developer informed that this rate was for new buyers and assured that the rate for the complainant would be @Rs.8750/- per sq.ft. As per demand, the complainant deposited Rs.2188220/- on 09.04.2014. The developer executed Apartment Buyer's Agreement on 24.04.2014. Annexure-IV of the agreement provides payment plan as "construction link payment plan". In Annexure-IV, basic sale price was mentioned @Rs.9400/- per sq.ft. and Preferential Location Charge @Rs.327.91 per sq.ft., then the complainant again inquired in this respect, then the developer assured that the revised rate would be taken back soon. The complainant, through email dated 26.12.2014, requested for a Photostat copy of her application form, which was supplied by the developer on 02.02.2015. Then the complainant noticed that in the Application Form, the developer had done tampering and in the rate, Rs.650/- was added after Rs.8750/- and 2BHK was written as 3BHK and super area as 1892 sq.ft. by overwriting. Similar tampering were done with other buyers of the project "The Corridor". Some buyers filed CC/195/2015, under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. After judgment of Full Bench of this Commission in CC/97/2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., CC/195/2015 was dismissed with liberty to file fresh complaint vide order dated 18.10.2016. The complainant along with 8 other buyers filed Civil Suit No.179 of 2016, for restraining the opposite parties from cancelling the allotments of apartment and raising unlawful and unjustified demand on the basis of manipulated rate and other consequential reliefs. Civil Judge (Senior Division), vide order dated 22.12.2016 directed the home buyers to deposit the instalments @Rs.8750/- per sq.ft. Later on the suit was dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. vide order dated 31.10.2017. The plaintiffs challenged the order dated 31.10.2017, in Civil Appeal No.116 of 2017, which was dismissed on 05.05.2018. Then the complaint was filed on 17.01.2019, alleging unfair trade practice inasmuch as (i) the developer started collecting money before approval of building plan. (ii) the developer misguided the buyers in respect of rate of the flat, due to which, FIR No.561/2014 was registered against the Director of the developer at PS Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. (iii) In the brochure, the developer propagated for 90 meter wide link road up to the project but acquisition of land for constructing link road of 90 meter wide was stayed by Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 04.01.2014 in CWP No.8983/2014 and concealing this fact, the developer realized instalments. (iv) The developer was neither the owner of the land nor Collaboration Agreement was registered and as such it would not able to confer title upon the buyer. Development Licence No.5 of 2013 dated 21.02.2013 expired and it was not renewed within time (v) Clause-13.3 of the agreement provides 42 months period from the date of approval of building plan, for offer of possession, with grace period of 180 days. Said period expired on 22.01.2017 but the construction was not completed nor possession was offered. (vi) The developer made tampering in the Application Form and in the rate, Rs.650/- was added after Rs.8750/- and 2BHK was written as 3BHK and super area as 1892 sq.ft. by overwriting.
5. The opposite parties filed its written reply on 23.08.2019 and contested the matter. The material facts relating to the project, allotment of the apartment to the complainant, execution of ABA in her favour and payments made by her, have not been disputed. The opposite parties stated that although building plan was approved on 23.07.2013 but "No Objection Certificate" from Fire Department was delayed and issued on 27.11.2014 although it was applied on 24.10.2013. The construction was started thereafter. The developer raised first demand for instalment of "Casting Roof Slab" from the complainant on 27.01.2015. The period of 42 months is liable to be counted from 27.11.2014 and due date of possession including grace period would be 26.11.2018. The construction of first phase of the project, which consisted 1356 apartments were completed. The developer applied for issue of "occupation certificate" for Towers A-6 to A-10, B-1 to B-4, C-3 to C-7 (consisting 700 apartments) and EWS block on 21.07.2017 and for revised "occupation certificate" on 28.05.2018, which was issued on 31.05.2019. The developer offered possession to the home buyers in these towers in June, 2019. The construction of Towers A1 to A-5, B-5 to B-8, C-8 to C-11, Community Centre, EWS Building-2, Convenient Shopping-1 and 2 was going on with full spring and likely to be completed soon. The delay in issue of "occupation certificate" was beyond the control of the developer and is a force majeure as provided in Clause-13.3 and 13.6 of the ABA. The developer is entitled for extension of the period, for which "occupation certificate" is being delayed. The complainant stopped payment of instalment after 18.03.2014. 4th instalment was due on 27.01.2015, 5th instalment was due on 06.06.2015, 6th instalment was due on 02.07.2015, 7th instalment was due on 03.08.2015 and 8th instalment was due on 20.11.2015. In spite of demand letter and repeated reminders, the complainant did not pay these instalments as such her allotment was cancelled on 05.01.2017. Total sale consideration of Flat No. CD-B1-09-903 was Rs.18939894/- out of which, the complainant paid Rs.5855264/- only. The complainant committed breach of contract and not entitled for refund of money. The complainant already approached civil court in Civil Suit No.179 of 2016, which was dismissed on 31.10.2017 and the decree has been upheld by the appellate court in Civil Appeal No.116 of 2017 by order dated 05.05.2018. The present complaint is barred by res-judicata. The complaint is also barred by limitation. Terms of the agreement, which was executed on 24.04.2014, cannot be challenged in the complaint filed on 17.01.2019. The complainant signed the agreement after reading all the contents. After about two years, the complainant began to challenge various clauses, in order to avoid payments. As per clause-13.5 of the ABA, the developer is entitled for one year as "extended period" and the claim for refund was pre-mature. The complainant can claim refund only after 27.11.2019, in case the developer, failed to offer possession till then. This Commission has no jurisdiction to alter the terms of the contract. After fully satisfying with the title of the opposite parties, the complainant booked apartment and deposited money. After signing the agreement, the complainant is not entitled to question the title of the opposite parties and avoid the terms of the agreement. In any case, limitation of two years as provided under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has expired for alleged allegations of unfair trade practice. It has been denied that the developer had misrepresented anything. Haryana Government has framed Rules and constituted Adjudicatory Authority, under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The project "The Corridor" was registered under the Act of 2016. There was no deficiency in service on part of the developer nor any unfair trade practice was committed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. The complainant filed Rejoinder Reply and Affidavit of Evidence and Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documentary evidence of Rupali Bahl. The complaint filed Additional Documentary Evidence vide IA/1556/2021 and IA/8607/2021. The opposite parties filed Additional Documentary Evidence vide IA/2361/2021. Both the parties have filed their written synopsis of arguments.
7. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Preliminary objections raised by the opposite parties have no force. Order VII Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides that rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. does not preclude from filing fresh suit. As such the complaint is not barred. No issue has been adjudicated on merit as such res-judicata will not apply. So far as limitation is concerned, the complainant has stated that some buyers filed CC/195/2015, under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the allegation of unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. After judgment of Full Bench of this Commission in CC/97/2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., CC/195/2015 was dismissed with liberty to file fresh complaint vide order dated 18.10.2016. The complainant along with 8 other buyers filed Civil Suit No.179 of 2016, for restraining the opposite parties from cancelling the allotments of apartment and raising unlawful and unjustified demand on the basis of manipulated rate and other consequential reliefs. Civil Judge (Senior Division), vide order dated 22.12.2016 directed the home buyers to deposit the instalments @Rs.8750/- per sq.ft. Later on the suit was dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. vide order dated 31.10.2017. The plaintiffs challenged the order dated 31.10.2017, in Civil Appeal No.116 of 2017, which was dismissed on 05.05.2018. Then the complaint was filed on 17.01.2019. These facts have not been disputed by the opposite parties. The period from filing of CC/195/2015 till 05.05.2018 is liable to be excluded under Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, from two years limitation as provided under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Cause of action arose on 02.02.2005, when the developer supplied the Photostat copy of the application form of the complainant and she could notice manipulation and overwriting made in it. Therefore the complaint is not barred by limitation.
8. The complainant alleged that she had inquired about the price of the flat at the time of booking then the developer informed that Rs.8750/- per sq.ft. as basic sale price the flat which included one car parking space, Rs.327.91 per sq.ft. as Development Charges, Rs.100/- per sq.ft. as Interest Free Maintenance Security, Rs.50/- per sq.ft. as Interest Bearing Replacement Fund and Rs.2.5 lacs towards club membership charges (optional). The complainant booked a 2BHK + SQ Flat on 14.03.2013. Later on by overwriting 2BHK + SQ has been made as 3BHK + SQ and super area has been made as 1892 sq.ft. In front of basic sale price after Rs.8750/- the developer wrote +650/-. These facts have been proved by filing Photostat copy of Application Form as supplied by the developer on 02.02.2005 as Annexure-8 to the complaint. Supply of Photostat copy of Application Form by the developer on 02.02.2005 has not been denied. The change of rate and area by the developer by tampering in the Application Form is proved. The developer has committed unfair trade practice.
9. Relying upon the judgment of this Commission in CC/1539/2016 Ashok Dewan Vs. IREO Private Limited, (decided on 22.10.2019), which affirmed by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Diary No.6347 of 2020 (decided on 15.06.2020), the counsel for the opposite parties submitted that as the complainant has committed breach of contract as such 20% earnest money as mentioned in clause-6 of the agreement together with interest on delayed payments, brokerage and service tax are liable to be forfeited under cluse-21.3 of the agreement. However, in the present case, the developer is guilty of committing unfair trade practice as such, it is not entitled to forfeit any amount. The developer has cancelled the allotment was 05.01.2017 but did not returned the money deposited by the complainant.
10. Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 442, held that in the matter of contractual obligation, there is no scope for compensation for mental agony and harassment. In DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, (2020) 16 SCC 318, held when interest is awarded as compensation then awarding additional compensation was not justified. In Experion Developers Private Limited Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 416, held that 9% interest, in case of refund, is just compensation, which is restitutory and compensatory both.
11. There is dispute in respect of rate of interest between the parties. The counsel for the complainants stated that Haryana Real Estate (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2017 provides for the interest, 1.5% per annum above the market rate, in case of refund. Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Vs. Govind Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725, has awarded interest @10.5% per annum. But in view of judgement of three Hon'ble Judges Bench, in Experion Developers (supra), we award interest @9% per annum.
ORDER
ln view of aforesaid discussions, the complaints are partly allowed. IREO Grace Realtech Private Limited is directed to refund entire money deposited by the complainants with interest @9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, within a period of two months from this judgment.
......................J RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. INDER JIT SINGH MEMBER