APPELLATE TRIBU NAL, MUM BAI Appeal No. AT005000000031726 in Complaint No

Appeal No. AT00500000003172 6 BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBU NAL, MUM BAI Appeal No. AT005000000031726 In Complaint No. CCO05O0OOOOO22669 1. Ms. Chhaya Vilas Madhekar 2. Mr. Vilas Raghunath Madhekar Both are having address at B 2020, Rajshree CHS Ltd. Tarun Bharat, Chakala Sahar Road Andheri East Mumbai- 400099. ... Appellants/ (Allottees) Versus D. S. Kulkarni House No./Flat No. 1187/60 DSK House, J.M. Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005 ... Respondent/ (Promoter) Mr. Vilas Madhekar in person for Appellants. trll None for Respondent. CORAM : SUMANT M. KOLHE, MEMBER (J) s. s. SANDHU, MEMBER (A) DATE : 1$ DECEMBER,2O2O. [PER: SUMANT KOLHE, MEMBER(J)] Order dated 14th luly, 2019 passed in Complaint No. CC005000000022669 by Chairperson MahaRERA is challenged in this Appeal. 1 Appea I No. AT005000000031726 Appellants are Allottees. Respondent is Promoter' Will refer the parties as Promoter and Allottees. Promoter launched the project namely "DSK Chaitraban" at Pirangut, Taluka- Mulashi, Pune. Allottees booked flat No. 8-209 having area of 43.3 Sq.mt. in the said project. Promoter agreed to sell the flat for price of Rs. 28,33,000/- excluding stamp duty and registration fees. The agreement for sale was executed and registered between Promoter and Allottees on 10th )uly, 20t7 . Allottees have paid Rs, 15,64,596 towards price of the flat, Promoter agreed to handover the possession of the flat within three years i.e. on 31't May, 2018. Promoter failed to give the possession as agreed. Allottees have obtained loan of HDFC Bank to purchase the flat. Promoter has committed breach of term of the agreement by not giving possession as per due date. ,/\b Allottees decided to withdraw from the project. Allottees cancelled the booking and demanded refund of the amount with interest and compensation by filing Complaint against Promoter under Section 18 of RERA. 2. The learned Chairperson passed impugned order dated 14th July, 2019 and contlnued to protect the rights of Allottees in this project and gave liberty to Allottees to file fresh Complaint at an appropriate stage. 2 Appeal No. AT005000000031726 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order Allottees have preferred this Appeal. We have heard Allottees in person. Appeal proceeded ex-parte against Promoter. 4 Following points arise for our determination. POINTS i) Whether the imPugned order is sustainable under the law? ii) What order? 5, Our findings on the above points for the reasons stated below are as under. FINDINGS i) No. ii) Appeal is allowed, q,b REASONS 6. "DSK Chaitraban" is the project launched by Promoter at Pirangut, Taluka- Mulashi, District- Pune. Allottees have booked flat No. 8-209 for price of Rs, 28,33,000/- in the sald project. Promoter agreed to sell and Allottees agreed to purchase the flat on certain terms and condltions. The agreement for sale was executed and reglstered on 10th July, 2015 between Promoter and Allottees. Promoter agreed to deliver the possession of the flat within three years i.e. on 3l't May, 2018. Allottees have paid Rs. 15,64,596/- towards price of the flat. Promoter failed to give possession of the flat as per due date. Allottees decided to withdraw from the project and 3 Appea I No. AT005000000031726 demanded refund with interest and compensation, Allottees have filed affidavit in support of their claim for recovery of refund with interest against Promoter. Affidavit is unchallenged. Promoter failed to contest the matter. Allottees have filed some receipts on record to show that they have paid the amount to Promoter, We believe and accept unchallenged affidavit of Allottees to conclude that Promoter failed to hand over possession as per due date and Allottees are entitled to get refund with interest and compensation by withdrawing from the project as per Section 18 of RERA, Allottees have not prayed for protection of their rights in respect of the project and have not sought liberty to claim the refund with interest at appropriate stage. So, impugned order to that effect is not proper, correct and legal, 9\ It is not sustainable under the law. We set-aside the impugned order, allow the Appeal and pass the following order. ORDER i) Appeal lrlo. 4T005000000031726 is ailowed. ii) Order dated 14th July, 2019 passed by MahaRERA in Complaint No. CC006000000022669 is set-aside. iii) Complaint No. CC005000000022669 is ailowed as under: a) Respondent shall refund the amount of Rs. 15,64,596 along with interest @ State Bank of India's highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate Plus 2olo to Allottees till final payment. 4 Appeal No. AT005000000031726 b) Charge of the above amount shall remain on the booked flat till realisation of the amount. t\$ c) Respondent shall pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to Appellants and shall bear their own costs. d) Copy be sent to both the parties and MahaRERA, as per Section 44(4) of RERA. ( .S. SANDH (suMANT KOLHE) 5.

Load more