RAJASTHAN REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY JAIPUR (1)Complaint No: RAJ/RERA/C-2021-4464 Vinay Agarwal ... Complainant VERSUS DC Agarwala and Co. Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent (2)Complaint No: RAJ/RERA/C-N-2022-5342 Kuldeep Sigh Chandela ... Complainant VERSUS DC Agarwala and Co. Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent Present Hon’ble Shri Salvinder Singh Sohata, Member or SING Sohata, Member 1. Advcoate Mitesh Rathore and Shruti Rai present on behalf of the Complainant No: di 2. CA.Prateek Rawat and Advocate Abhinav Shekhar on behalf of Complainant No: 2. 3. Advocate Harshal Tholia and Rubal Tholia present on behalf of Promoter-Respondent Date of Order: 28.07.2023 ORDER The cases are having identical facts and similar questions of ey \ 3 Law are involved therein, therefore, the complaints are to be }aa . ffs ; Z AS “disposed of by a common order. The copy of the orders be placed in the respective files. Page 1 of 10 Complaint No: RAJ-RERA-C-2021-4464 & RAJ-RERA-C-N-2022-5342The factual matrix of the Cases is that the Complainants respectively booked their unit in the project “ Unique Vidhyadeep’” bearing registration No: RAJ/P/2017/201. According to the information provided by the Promoter while registration of the project before the Authority, the project was likely to be completed on 31.07.2020 but the project is not yet completed and an extension with regard to the validity of registration certificate i.e. allowed up to 31.07.2024 on request of the Promoter. With regard to deposit and execution of Agreement for Sale etc. details are made available in the Table mentioned herein below:- | Sl. | Name of Flat | No. Complainant No. 1 | Vinay Agrawal | 909 Gist Kuldeep Singh | 601 Chandela | & j | 602 Table Sale | Amount ' Date of ‘Expected | Relief Consideration | Paid Agreement Delivery of Sought | (In Rs.) | (In Rs.) | | Possession a { 3 4 aad snl = | 26,49,771/- 23,13,954/- | 04.12.2017 31.07.2020 | Refund of | | money | | along with AEG S | | interest | [35,47,481/- 27,53,170/- | 26-02-2020 | 31.07.2020 Refund of for Flat No for Flat No. | for both the money 601 and 601 and units along with 28,13,400/- 21,76,549/- | interest for Flat No. for Flat No. | | 602 | 602 _ | | The Complainants prayed for relief to allow refund with interest in lack of completion of the project within the specified period mentioned therein the Clause 7.1 for Agreement for Sale i.e. ~ on 31.07.2020. Page 2 of 10 Complaint No: RAJ-RERA-C-2021-4464 & RAJ-RERA-C-N-2022-5342The Promoter has filed the reply and stated therein that due to force majeure the extension to the validity of the registration was allowed by the Authority, the project was delayed due to demonetization or prevalent economic conditions, liquidity crunch, nonpayment of installments by the respective allottees, scarcity of raw material to be used for basic construction i.e. ban on bajri & sand mining, ban on construction by the NGT etc. and unavailability of labour due to outbreak of COVID-19 etc. It is vehemently mentioned therein that according to Clause 6.2 of the agreement, allottees are not entitled to demand the handing over of the possession unless the payment of agreed consideration is paid by the allottees. The completion date of project is extended by the Authority, therefore the Respondent-promoter is having the obligation to hand over the possession within the agreed period which was subject to force majeure circumstances and time Payment of the installments by the allottees. On the basis of the uarterly Progress Report (QPR) before the Authority, it is categorically mentioned therein the reply _ that progress/ development of the project is clearly visible and the Promoter is © intended to complete the project. At the crucial time of the ‘development of the project refund if allowed shall hamper the Page 3 of 10 Complaint No: RAJ-RERA-C-2021-4464 & RAJ-RERA-C-N-2022-5342Progress of the project and jeopardize the interest of other co- allottees, therefor