THE RAJASTHAN REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, JAIPUR Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-2022-5282 Saroj Kiran Mandawaria ...Complainant Versus Siddha Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent PRESENT Shri Shailendra Agarwal, Hon’ble Member ls Advocate Samkit Jain and Adv Shruti Rai, on behalf of the complainant Adv Anurag Jain and Adv Unnati Vijay, on behalf of the respondent Date of Order: 08.02.2023 ORDER The complainant in the present case, appeared through his counsel Samkit Jain and Adv Shruti Rai and stated their case in regard to the booking of an apartment booked by them in a project called “Siddha Aangan” at Ajmer Road, Jaipur. The respondent was represented by Advocate Anurag Jain and Adv Unnati Vijay. Stating his case, the counsel of the complainant submitted that the complainant booked a flat in block “Baya” in the aforementioned project on 11.05.2016. The respondent, according to the complainant, Page No. | of 8 Comp. No.2022-5282offered a construction linked payment plan under the subvention scheme whereby a substantial amount towards the sale consideration of the flat was to be given by the bank, the pre-EMI interest of which was to be paid by the respondent. The total sale consideration of this flat was Rs.21.16 lakh. A tripartite agreement dated 27.09.2016 was entered into between the complainant, the respondent and the HDFC bank, who, as per their obligation, sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.19 kh and started disbursing the loan amount. The complainant claimed offered the complainant to shift to another block “Mayur” of the same project “Siddha Aangan” and assured that block “Mayur” would be completed and the possession would be handed over by July, 2019. The total sale consideration of this new flat was Rs.24.50 lakh. This shifting to a new apartment took place through a new agreement for sale dated 27.08.2018 and the new date of possession was 31.07.2019 along with a grace period of six months. The complainant has paid Rs.22.50 lakh which amounts to a substantial payment upto more than 90 percent but the project is complete only to the extent of 45 per cent as admitted by them in the QPRs submitted by the Page No.2of 8 Comp. No.2022-5282respondent to the Authority. At present, the project remains lapsed and the respondent has not even chosen to extend the validity of the project in the Authority. The complainant accepted that the respondent has paid Rs.2,40,229/- followed by another installment of Rs.1,00.000/- as the pre-EMI amounts promised by them in the agreement for sale. However, even though the second promised date of completion of 31.07.2019 and the grace period of six months has for refund of the amount deposited by him along with interest and compensation. The respondent represented by their legal counsel Advocate Anurag Jain admitted the basic facts regarding the case as stated by the complainant. He admitted that the initial booking was made in May, 2016 and an agreement for sale was signed along with the bank in September, 2016. They also accepted that the complainant was shifted to another project with a new agreement for sale which committed a new date of possession, i.e., 31.07.2019 along with a grace period of six months. However, he stated that the amount of Page NoZof 8 Comp. No.2022-5282Rs.3,40,229/- given to the complainant was paid as a compensation as a part of settlement between the complainant and the respondent and not as the pre-EMIs as claimed by the complainant. The respondent argued that talks of settlement are going on between the complainant and the respondent and a settlement will soon be arrived at for which some amount as compensation has already been paid. Stating these arguments, the respondent prayed for time for the In their rejoinder the complainant reiterated that the amount of Rs.3,40,229/- was paid as pre EMI and not as compensation and Stated that this amount paid on a lump sum basis when divided by number of months comes exactly equal to the pre-EMI w