|     |     |    |    |     |     |  
MREAT directs Piramal Estate to pay back buyers' money after 'medical emergency'
not available
MREAT directs Piramal Estate to pay back buyers' money after 'medical emergency'
Publish on : 2021-05-03 12:33:59
MREAT, while hearing an appeal against a MahaRERA order of October 3, 2019, directed Piramal Estate Pvt Ltd to pay a Thane couple Rs 5.6 lakh, which they had paid in 2019 towards cost of a flat in Vaikunth cluster in Thane. MUMBAI: Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT), in a recent judgment, stated that the home-buyers’ right to make a request for reservation of flat includes right to withdraw such a request for reservation of flat. MREAT, while hearing an appeal against a MahaRERA order of October 3, 2019, directed Piramal Estate Pvt Ltd to pay a Thane couple Rs 5.6 lakh, which they had paid in 2019 towards cost of a flat in Vaikunth cluster in Thane. The couple canceled the booking in May and sought a refund due to a medical emergency. While stating that MahaRERA had passed the impugned order without proper application of mind and without correct appreciation of facts, MREAT members Sumant Kolhe and SS Sandhu observed that the clauses, relating to forfeiture of 10% of the price of flat or amount paid till date whichever is lesser in case of withdrawal, in the request for reservation form was an unreasonable, unfair and one-sided condition, and was against the object and purpose of RERA. MREAT members also observed that though this claim of refund was not governed by any specific provision of RERA, it cannot be ignored that the objective of RERA was to protect interests of consumers. Dinesh and Ranjana Humane, represented by advocate Sunil Kewalramani, submitted a form of “request for reservation of flat” on January 29, 2019, and booked a flat in Vaikunth Cluster project, paying more than Rs 1 lakh. They also paid nearly Rs 4.5 lakh on March 1, 2019, towards price of the flat. But due to a medical emergency in the family, they decided to cancel the booking. They requested the promoter to refund Rs 5.6 lakh. But the promoter claimed the amount had been forfeited on account of cancellation, as per clause 17 of form of request for reservation. MREAT observed that the forfeiture clause and clause that allottees had no right to withdraw their request for reservation, was unfair, unreasonable, one-sided and inequitable, and home-buyers cannot be restrained from exercising their right of withdrawing from the project. MREAT also pointed out that such unreasonable and unfair transactions cannot be enforced. The promoter, represented by advocate Abir Patel, argued that allottees claimed relief on the basis of clause 18 of ‘model agreement’ for sale, as given under rules of RERA. Patel also claimed there was no violation of provisions of RERA or rules and regulations and the clause of forfeiture was given in model agreement under RERA rules and was not against its spirit.

@2019 TeamUp. All rights reserved. Site visitors are subject to our Privacy Policy and Terms of use.