MahaRERA orders promoter to compensate investors

"Any aggrieved person can file a complaint against the promoter of the registered project, if the promoter contravenes or violates any provisions of RERA," this is what Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) said when one of the top developer JVPD Properties Ltd had taken a stand that the complainants are investor's, therefore, they are not entitled to file the complaints. Not only this MahaRERA ordered the developer to refund the amount paid by the complainants with interest.

A bunch of complainants approached MahaRERA stating, they booked flats in the project Bhagtani Serenity, Powai. The developer had issued the allotment letter stating that he shall complete the construction within the period of 42 months from the receipt of final commencement certificate from plinth level. The complainants claimed that the developer failed to bring the clearances within the period of nine months plus a grace period of the next three months from the date of booking and complete the construction to date. They further alleged that developer by their letter dated July 24, 2017, showed their inability to complete the construction and give possession as agreed.

The developer in his reply to MahaRERA contended that complainants are investors and they are not allottees because in para 11 and 18 of the provisional allotment letter they have admitted that they are investors. The letter also was subject to approvals and permissions to be granted by various authorities for construction. It was a contingent contract and therefore it cannot be enforced as the approvals and permissions required for construction have not been granted, hence the developer requested to dismiss the complaint.

The advocate for the developers submitted that the complainants did not insist on the execution of an agreement for sale only because, they were investors. B D Kapadnis, MahaRERA member hearing the case said, "I do not agree because they (complainants) booked the flats in the year 2013/2014, the respondents themselves have contended that they received IOD on April 6, 2016. IOD was required for registration of the agreement. The respondents delayed the IOD and they avoided to execute the agreement for sale. They cannot take undue advantage of their own wrong to say that the complainants are investors." He further went in detail to explain why the complaints are not investors, he also pointed out that the letter by the developer had all conditions of an agreement and a mere clause stating that the complainants are investors will not make them investors in real sense.

Kapadnis, stated that the facts proved that respondents made either incorrect or false statement at the time of collecting money from the complainants that they would complete the project. Hence, the respondents are liable to refund the amount of complainants with interest. He ordered the developer to return the money with simple interest at the rate of 10.05 % per annum from the dates of payment till they are refunded. He awarded the complainants Rs 20,000 each towards the cost of the complaint. And finally, the charge was put on the property until the complainants' claims are satisfied.