In the realm of real estate regulations in Rajasthan, one case stands out for its impact on homebuyers and the importance of consumer protection. The case at hand, Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-2021-4185, sheds light on the non-completion of the "THE HABITAT" project and the ensuing dispute regarding refunds and loan repayments. This article delves into the intricacies of the case, outlining the perspectives of the complainant, respondents, and the Indian Overseas Bank.
The parties involved in this case are the complainant, Priyanka Sharma, and the respondents: Aryans Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Dr. Virendra Swaroop Educational Foundation, and the Indian Overseas Bank. With a keen focus on the issue of non-completion of the project, the case presents a compelling scenario that requires careful examination.
To fully comprehend the implications of this case, it is essential to understand the broader context of real estate regulations in Rajasthan. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the interests of homebuyers. RERA aims to bring transparency, accountability, and efficiency to the real estate sector, fostering trust between developers and consumers.
Within the framework of RERA, the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA rajasthan) acts as the regulatory body responsible for addressing complaints and resolving disputes. It ensures compliance with the provisions of RERA, including project registration and adherence to buyer agreements. By establishing a system that promotes transparency and accountability, Rajasthan RERA seeks to instill confidence in the real estate market.
The complaint filed by Priyanka Sharma, Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-2021-4185, revolves around her involvement in the "THE HABITAT" project. As per the complaint, Priyanka Sharma entered into an agreement with Aryans Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., booking a flat for a total sale consideration of Rs. 27.16 lakh on October 13, 2016. To facilitate the payment of the remaining balance, Priyanka Sharma and the respondents entered into a subvention agreement with the Indian Overseas Bank.
However, Priyanka Sharma alleges that the project's progress was unsatisfactory, with little to no response from the developer. Upon visiting the project site, it became apparent that the construction had come to a complete halt. Faced with this predicament, Priyanka Sharma sought justice from the Rajasthan RERA, seeking a refund of the amount paid, along with interest and compensation. Additionally, Priyanka Sharma requested that the Indian Overseas Bank be restrained from demanding further EMIs, as the subvention agreement placed the responsibility of pre-EMI payments on the respondents.
In response to the complaint, the respondents contested its maintainability, claiming that the allotment was canceled due to non-compliance by Priyanka Sharma. However, they failed to provide specific instances of non-compliance or the terms and conditions allegedly violated. Furthermore, the Indian Overseas Bank argued that the complainant bore the liability to repay the loan, as stipulated in the subvention agreement.
Arguments and Counter-arguments
Priyanka Sharma's argument revolves around the inadequate progress of the "THE HABITAT" project and the lack of satisfactory communication from the developer. Faced with a project that had barely started and an expired promised possession date, Priyanka Sharma seeks a refund of the principal amount, along with interest and compensation. Additionally, Priyanka Sharma asserts that the Indian Overseas Bank should refrain from demanding further EMIs, as the subvention agreement holds the respondents responsible for these payments.
The respondents, Aryans Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and Dr. Virendra Swaroop Educational Foundation, challenge the maintainability of the complaint, arguing that the allotment was canceled due to non-compliance by Priyanka Sharma. However, they fail to provide specific examples or terms and conditions that were allegedly violated. By contesting the maintainability, the respondents seek to dismiss the complaint on procedural grounds.
Indian Overseas Bank's Perspective
The Indian Overseas Bank, a signatory to the subvention agreement, argues that Priyanka Sharma bears the liability for loan repayment. They contend that the borrower, Priyanka Sharma, must honor the agreement and fulfill their obligation to repay the loan, regardless of any disputes between the complainant and the respondents. The bank maintains that the subvention agreement establishes the borrower's responsibility for loan installments and any associated dues.
After careful consideration of the arguments presented by all parties, the RERA rajasthan reached a decision. The Authority observed that the project had not been completed, and the promised possession date had long expired. It became evident that the respondents had failed to fulfill their obligations. The Authority also noted the Supreme Court's observation that defaulting flat buyers availing subvention facilities should not be treated as Non-Performing Assets (NPAs), and their CIBIL scores should not be affected.
Based on these findings, the Authority directed the respondents to refund the complainant's amount of Rs. 2.54 lakh, along with interest. The prescribed interest rate, as per the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2017, is set at SBI highest MCLR + 2%, which amounts to 9.30%. Furthermore, the respondents were instructed to repay the entire loan amount drawn from the bank, along with interest at the same prescribed rate.
Implications and Compliance
Non-compliance by the respondents within the given timeline carries significant consequences. If the respondents fail to comply with the Authority's decision within 45 days, the complainant, Priyanka Sharma, has the right to execute the decree and recover the amount with interest from the respondents' assets. It is crucial for all parties involved to prioritize compliance with RERA regulations and meet their contractual obligations to avoid further legal ramifications.
The case of Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-2021-4185 highlights the critical role of real estate regulations in protecting homebuyers' rights and maintaining transparency within the sector. The Authority's ruling reinforces the significance of adhering to RERA guidelines and fulfilling contractual obligations. By ensuring compliance, we can build a real estate market that instills trust and safeguards the interests of both developers and consumers.
Note: The information provided in this article about Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA rajasthan) is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal or professional advice and readers should consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their circumstances. The information provided in this article is based on the Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-2021-4185 before the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority
We hope you found our blog insightful and engaging! We appreciate your time and interest. If you enjoyed reading it, don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our latest content. Visit our website www.reunionhq.in to know more.