LAWS(KER)-2022-7-358

UNNIKRISHNAN CHANDRAN PILLAI Vs. TATA REALITY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

Decided On July 14, 2022
Unnikrishnan Chandran Pillai Appellant
V/S
Tata Reality Infrastructure Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed under Sec. 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, against the common order dtd. 12/8/2021 in REFA Nos.21 & 27 of 2021 on the files of the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam.

(2.) M.S.A.No.4/2021 has been directed against the order in REFA No.21/2021 which was preferred against the order passed by the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (for short, K-RERA), Thiruvananthapuram on 16/10/2020 in Complaint No.185/2020 and M.S.A.No.5/2021 has been directed against the order in REFA No.27/2021 which was filed against the order of the learned Adjudicating Officer (A.O.) attached to K-RERA dtd. 23/4/2021 in CCP No.110/2020.

(3.) Appellant booked an apartment in July, 2019 in the multi-storied residential apartment project named 'Tritvam' at Marine Drive in Kochi launched by the first respondent. He paid total amount of Rs.16.00 lakhs towards advance amount. Advance payment was received by the first respondent before executing the agreement as provided under Sec. 13 of the Act. However, in October 2019, the promoter requested the appellant to make payment of the amount required for registration of the sale agreement. For that appellant requested by letter to cancel the booking of the apartment on the ground of inability to raise the money and also requested the promoter to return the advance amount of Rs.16.00 lakhs paid by him, to which, the promoter sent a reply letter intimating that out of Rs.16.00 lakhs received, an amount of Rs.15,16,667.00 is liable to be forfeited in view of the default on the part of the appellant and expressed willingness to return Rs.83,333.00. Aggrieved by that reply, the appellant approached K-RERA with a complaint No.185/2020, claiming advance payment with interest along with Rs.5.00 lakhs towards compensation. Further he made a request for imposing penalty for violation of Sec. 13.