The complainant – Avinash and Neha Duggar Saraf – claimed the amounts paid by them to Runwal Homes towards booking of a flat in Redwood in Runwal Greens in Mulund in November 2014.
On Friday, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) passed an order against Runwal Homes Pvt Ltd, which has become the highest refund amount put on a developer, for not delivering a flat on the promised deadline. This also will be first order of MahaRERA that a developer has openly said he will challenge in the Bombay High Court. The developer has been asked to pay a home buyer Rs 1.94 crores plus the interest that has to be computed on SBI's highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) rate, plus two percent.
The Rs 1.94 crore includes consideration amount towards the flat cost of Rs 1.74 crore, Rs 8.86 lakh as stamp duty and registration charges, and Rs 11 lakh towards the interest paid by the complainant to the bank on the loan (s)he borrowed.
SBI's highest MCLR plus 2 per cent will have to be calculated from May 2017 till the date on which payment is made to the buyer. Runwal Homes Pvt Ltd has got a stay of 30-days on the order and is going to appeal to the High Court.
The complainant – Avinash and Neha Duggar Saraf – claimed the amounts paid by them to Runwal Homes towards booking of a flat in Redwood in Runwal Greens in Mulund in November 2014. They said they paid 97 per cent of total consideration and were promised possession in August 2016.
The Sarafs also claimed that under subvention scheme, promoted by Runwal Homes, the developer paid interest up to August 2016. However, the banks recovered the installments with interest from them. Apart from this, the Sarafs also asked the stamp duty and registration amount to be refunded. The builder contended that as the stamp duty amount was paid to the government, they cannot refund it. However, MahaRERA ordered them to pay the stamp duty and registration amount too.
The developer had contended that the agreement of sale was executed on November 10, 2014, while RERA has come into effect from May 2017, hence it has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. This contention was overruled.
The order read, "Section 18 of RERA imposes the liability on the promoter to return the amounts received by him if he fails to give the possession on time. The complainants have claimed refund and they are entitled to get them back." The order also mentions that the developer will pay Rs 20,000 towards cost of the complaint.
When contacted Subodh Runwal, director of Runwal Homes Pvt Ltd, said, "We have sought a 30-days stay to appeal the matter in the high court. RERA is expected to be prospective and not retrospective, but in this case they have been retrospective."
MahaRERA Refund details
- The family was promised possession of the Mulund flat in August 2016
- Runwal Homes Pvt Lts has been asked to pay Rs 1.94 crores plus interest
- The developer has challeneged the order in Bombay High Court
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "MAHARERA")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}