Newsdetail

HRERA orders Vatika Ltd to refund homebuyers money

By Rishabh Chamoli | 2022-11-12

HRERA orders Vatika Ltd to refund homebuyers money

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) ordered Vatika Limited to refund money to homebuyers with interest as it failed to start the construction of the project. Further, the group will have to pay the loan amount to respective banks too.

In a major move, Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) directed Vatika Limited to refund money to about 28 homebuyers who booked the unit in a residential project called Turning Point in Sector 88B, Gurgaon. The RERA court took the final decision in favour of homebuyers as the developer didnt initiate the construction work. The court directed builder to refund at the applicable rate of interest of 10.25 percent per annum. In addition, the developer will also pay the loan amount to the respective banks in case of the loan facilities taken by the flat owners.

Verdict by the RERA Court
The HRERA court took this decision as the promoter has abandoned the project. The developer will be required to refund the money with interest at the prescribed rate of 10.25 percent per annum from the date of each payment till the date of actual realisation within the timelines as prescribed under the rule 16 of the Rules 2017.

RERAs verdict on loan amount
Some homebuyers had also raised loans from banks while depositing sale consideration of the allotted units. The HRERA has directed the developer to pay the loan amount with interest to the banks and the remainder to the allottees.

The project in case
The case involves a residential project named Turning Point by Vatika Limited at Sector 88B, Gurgaon. The developer obtained licence from the DTCP in 2013 to develop this residential group housing project. The completion date of the project was September 15, 2025. However, even after four years after the booking, there was no physical work progress at the site except for some digging work.

The RERA court also observed that the housing units were allotted to different people on variable sale consideration. Moreover, the promoter failed to file quarterly progress reports providing the status of work progress required under Section 11 of Act 2016.