The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Maha RERA”) opined that under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “RERA”, oral assurance has no value, as the Section mandates the agreement for sale or any other document. Therefore, no interest or compensation was granted to the Complainant under Section 18.
It was observed that the allotment letter brought on record by the Complainant did not show any date of possession. There was no cogent evidence to prove that the Respondent committed any date of possession in writing. Therefore, due to the absence of any written documentary evidence to prove the date of possession, the Authority did not find substance in the Complainant’s contentions.
Brief Facts:
The present complaint has been preferred to seek direction to the Respondent to refund the entire amount along with interest and compensation under Section 18 of the RERA.
Contentions of the Complainant:
It was submitted that full consideration was paid to the Respondent, however out of that, only some has been refunded and the balance amount has still not been refunded. Even the possession has not been delivered by the respondent so far as site work could not be completed due to financial fraud and misconduct by the Respondent.
Observations of the Authority:
It was noted that till date the Respondent did not reply to the complaint and has not complied with any directions. Therefore, the matter proceeded ex-parte.
Further, it was observed that the allotment letter brought on record by the Complainant did not show any date of possession. There was no cogent evidence to prove that the Respondent committed any date of possession in writing. Therefore, due to the absence of any written documentary evidence to prove the date of possession, the Authority did not find substance in the Complainant’s contentions.
It was opined that under Section 18, oral assurance has no value, as the Section mandates the agreement for sale or any other document. Therefore, no interest or compensation was granted to the Complainant under Section 18.
Regarding the refund of the balance amount, it was noted that the Respondent showed a willingness to refund the amount and hence, nothing survived in the complaint.
The decision of the Authority:
Based on the aforementioned findings, the Authority directed the Respondent to approach MahaRERA for an extension of the project or to revive the project, share the details with the Allottees and refund the entire amount of the Complainant. Accordingly, the complaint was disposed of.
Case Title: Prakash Vithal Salunke v. M/s. Dhartee Infrastructure
Coram: Shri Mahesh Pathak (Hon’ble Member-I)
Case No: Complaint No. CC005000000085687
Advocate for Complainant: Adv. Sudip Kenjalkar
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
