Ocean Seven Buildtech Directed by HARERA to Compensate Homebuyer for Delay and Fulfil All Statutory Obligations in Expressway Towers Project
Pranav B Prem
In a detailed order, the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA), Gurugram, through Member Ashok Sangwan, has directed Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. to pay interest at the prescribed rate of 11.10% per annum to a homebuyer for the delayed possession of a flat in the Expressway Towers project located at Sector 109, Gurugram. The Authority further issued a series of directions aimed at safeguarding the rights of the allottee, including a bar on conditional indemnity undertakings, a mandate to share the sanctioned layout plan, and instructions to levy only permissible maintenance charges.
Background
The complainant, Darshana Hooda, was allotted Flat No. 2502 in Tower 5 of the Expressway Towers project under the affordable housing category, pursuant to an allotment letter dated 21.09.2017. The buyer’s agreement was signed on 17.06.2017. The total sale consideration for the unit was ₹26,29,500, of which ₹19,10,340 was already paid by the complainant as per the builder’s payment plan.
As per Clause 1(iv) of the Affordable Housing Policy, 2013, all projects must be completed within four years from the later of either the building plan approval or environmental clearance. In this case, the environmental clearance was granted on 30.11.2017 and the building plan was approved earlier on 26.09.2016. Accordingly, the due date for possession was calculated as 30.05.2022, factoring in a six-month COVID-19 relaxation granted by the government.
Despite making substantial payments, the homebuyer alleged that the builder failed to provide updates on construction or any valid offer of possession. Aggrieved by the delay and lack of transparency, the complainant filed a complaint before HARERA under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Builder’s Response and Tribunal's Findings
The builder contended that delays were due to several force majeure events, including:
The COVID-19 pandemic.
Ban on construction activities in NCR due to National Green Tribunal (NGT) orders.
Suspension of the project license by the DTCP Haryana.
Freezing of project-related accounts by HARERA.
It further argued that as per Clause 5.5 of the buyer’s agreement, such delays were beyond their control and hence, no liability could be fastened on them. Additionally, the builder claimed that the allottee had defaulted on payments, leading to the cancellation of the unit which was subsequently allotted to another buyer.
However, the Authority found these arguments unsubstantiated. It held that:
The ban by the NGT was temporary and insufficient to justify prolonged delays.
The suspension of the license and freezing of bank accounts resulted from the builder's own violations, and therefore, no benefit could be claimed under the force majeure clause.
There was no document on record to establish that the unit was lawfully cancelled or reallotted.
The complainant had paid a significant portion of the sale consideration and could not be considered a defaulter.
The Authority also noted that no occupation certificate had been obtained by the builder, nor was there any valid offer of possession made. Therefore, the project was deemed ongoing, and the builder was found in violation of Section 11(4)(a) of the RERA Act.
Key Directions Issued by the Authority
Interest for Delay in Possession: Under Section 18(1) of the Act read with Rule 15 of the Haryana Rules, the Authority directed the builder to pay interest at 11.10% per annum on the paid-up amount for each month of delay from 30.05.2022 until the earlier of:
Valid offer of possession plus two months, or
Actual handover of possession.
Execution of Conveyance Deed: The builder was directed to hand over possession and execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant under Section 17(1) within three months of obtaining the occupation certificate, subject to payment of applicable stamp duty and registration charges by the buyer.
Indemnity Restrictions: Citing its previous ruling in Varun Gupta v. Emaar MGF Land Ltd., the Authority barred the builder from requiring the complainant to sign any indemnity-cum-undertaking or any other conditional documentation prejudicial to her rights at the time of executing the conveyance deed.
Disclosure of Layout Plan: Under Section 19(1) of the RERA Act, the complainant is entitled to the sanctioned layout and specifications. Accordingly, the builder was directed to provide the exact layout plan of the allotted unit within one month of the order.
Maintenance Charges Clarified: Referring to the DTCP Haryana’s Office Order dated 31.01.2024, the Authority held that maintenance charges must be levied only in accordance with Category-II of the said order and based on actual consumption. The builder was barred from imposing any blanket or arbitrary charges not supported by the buyer’s agreement or permissible under the Affordable Housing Policy, 2013.
Interest Parity Between Buyer and Builder: The Authority emphasized that the interest rate applicable on delayed payments by the buyer would also be the same as the rate payable by the builder in case of delayed possession—ensuring equitable treatment, as per Section 2(za) of the Act.
Updated Statement of Account: The builder was directed to issue a final statement of account adjusting the delayed possession interest and other applicable dues. The buyer is to clear any balance amount, if any, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the updated statement.
Jurisdiction Clarification: The builder had challenged HARERA’s jurisdiction citing the arbitration clause in the buyer’s agreement. This was rejected by the Authority, which relied on precedents including Aftab Singh v. Emaar MGF Land Ltd [Revision petition no. 2629- 30/2018 in civ ee ee 2 as are of 2047 decided on 10.12.2018] and National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy [(2012) 2 SCC 506, ], holding that statutory authorities like HARERA are not bound by arbitration clauses and have full jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes.
Verdict
The Authority found Ocean Seven Buildtech in violation of multiple statutory obligations and contractual commitments. The directions aim to ensure that the complainant receives timely justice for delayed possession and is protected from any coercive conditions or unfair charges. The complaint was accordingly disposed of with comprehensive reliefs granted to the homebuyer under various provisions of the RERA Act.
Appearance
For the Complainant: Gaurav Rawat (Advocate)
For the Respondent: Arun Yadav (Advocate)
Cause Title: Darshana Hooda V. M/s Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case No: Complaint No - 556 of 2024
Coram: Shri Ashok Sangwan [Member]
[Read/Download order]
