MahaRERA Rejects Refund Plea Against Piramal Estates After Homebuyer Accepted Partial Refund And Cancellation

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently rejected a complaint filed by a homebuyer seeking a refund of Rs 76.28 lakh allegedly forfeited by Piramal Estates after cancellation of a flat booking, holding that once a registered cancellation deed was executed and the refund was accepted, the transaction could not be reopened.

Member Ravindra Deshpande observed that the complainant had accepted the refund in November 2019 and raised the dispute only later.

“The Complainant, after accepting the refund amount in November 2019, has sought to raise the present dispute only subsequently by issuing a legal notice and filing the complaint, which appears to be an afterthought,” the authority said.

The complainant had booked Flat No. 2402 on the 24th floor in C-Wing, Tower Vyom of the project “Piramal Vaikunth” at Balkum, Thane, along with two car parking spaces.

An Agreement for Sale dated December 8, 2017 fixed the total consideration at Rs 2,22,17,020. The complainant paid Rs 1,55,20,253 including taxes.

Later, due to personal exigencies including the death of his wife, the complainant sought cancellation of the booking. The parties executed a registered Deed of Cancellation on November 26, 2019.

The builder refunded Rs 1,18,06,270.

The complainant alleged that the respondent had illegally forfeited part of the amount despite there being no default on his part.

He also claimed that the builder had refused to grant a no-objection certificate to allow sale of the flat to a third party. After issuing a legal notice in October 2020 seeking refund of Rs 76,28,992 with interest, he filed the present complaint.

The Authority held that the cancellation deed was executed with the consent of both parties and the complainant accepted the refund recorded in the deed. He did not challenge the deed or allege coercion, fraud or misrepresentation.

The Authority also noted that the cancellation was at the complainant's request and not due to delay in construction or failure to hand over possession.

Holding that no violation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was made out and that the forfeiture was in terms of the Agreement for Sale, the Authority ruled that the dispute related to contractual terms already settled between the parties.

The complaint was therefore rejected.