FORM ‘CRA’ [as per rule 28 (1)]

COMPLAINT TO AUTHORITY

For use of Regulatory Authority(s) office:

Date of filing: ______________________

Date of [receipt at the filing counter of the Registry/receipt by post/online filing]:

______________________

Complaint No.: ______________________

Signature: ________________________

Registrar: ________________________

1
 Index

APPENDIX –A

BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM,

HARYANA

In the matter of:

Manu Singh ….. Complainant

Versus

BPTP Limited. …… Respondent

INDEX

S NO. Particulars Page No.

Proforma B

Memo of Parties

List of Dates

Brief Facts

Issue to be decided

Relief Sought

Affidavit

Annexures

2
 BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA

In the matter of:

Manu Singh ….. Complainant

Versus

BPTP Limited. …… Respondent

MEMO OF PARTIES

Mr. Manu Singh

B-2/6, Agrasen Apartments,

Sector – 7, Plot No. 10,

Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075 ……Complainant

Versus

BPTP Limited
OT-14, 3rd Floor, Next Door,
Parklands Sector-76,
Faridabad, Haryana – 121004 ………Respondent

Filed by:

Amish Tandon (Adv,) (D/1106/2009)

E-1, Lajpat Nagar – III

New Delhi – 110024

3
 Mob. No - 9971850060

PROFORMA B

APPENDIX-B

PROFORMA-B

Registration of the Complaints

1. Particulars of the Complainant

 Name: Mr. Manu Singh
 Address for correspondence: B-2/6, Agrasen Apartments, Sector – 7,
Plot No. 10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075
 Mobile telephone number : +91-9711361966
 Email ID : johney26@gmail.com

2. Particulars of the Respondent-Promoter

4
  Company’s name: BPTP Limited
 Location of the Real Estate Project to which the complaint relates.:
Mansions Park Prime at Sector – 66, Gurugram, Haryana - 122028
 Registration number of the project granted by RERA, Haryana (If the
project is un-registered write un-registered): _________
 Name: Mansions Park Prime
 Address: Sector – 66, Gurugram, Haryana - 122028
 Mobile telephone number: +91-7428-692-115
 Email ID: customercare@bptp.com; secreterial@bptp.com

3. Jurisdiction of the Authority:

This Hon’ble Authority has the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate the present
complaint.

4. Particulars of the Advocate/Representative (If any) through whom the

complainant wishes to be represented before the Authority
 Name: Amish Tandon
 Profession: Advocate
 Address for correspondence: E-1, LGF, Lajpat Nagar III, New Delhi -
110024
 Mobile telephone number: 9971850060
 Email ID: contact@innovatuslaw.in

5. Registration number of the complaint (Till website of the Authority is

launched the Registration number will be granted by the Authority. It will
be generated by computer after the process of online registration of the
Complaints commences)

Signature of the complainant/s

................................................................

…………………………………………

(AADHAR No.):

5
Signature of the representative of the complainants (if any):

……..................................................................

(AADHAR No.) ......................................

List of dates

APPENDIX-C

S. DATE EVENT
No.

1. 30.06.2010 The Complainant vide an application for allotment dated

30.06.2010 applied for allotment / purchase of a unit
admeasuring 2764 Sq. Ft. from BPTP Limited having
registered office at OT-14, 3rd Floor, Next Door,
Parklands Sector-76, Faridabad, Haryana - 121004
(hereinafter the “Company”) in its project titled

6
 “Mansions” Park Prime. Pursuant to execution of the
Allotment Application Form, the Complainant had
deposited the initial demand sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the
Company vide cheque No. 047427.

2. 06.07.2010 The Complainant deposited a further sum of Rs.

8,00,000/- as an initial payment to the Company vide
Cheque No. 047428.

3. 04.09.2010 – Thereafter, timely payments were made to the Company

10.08.2012 as and when demanded.

4. 23.08.2010 The Company issued an allotment cum demand letter to

the Complainant with reference to allotment and total
amount payable with respect to the Property.

5. 01.02.2011 A Flat Buyer’s Agreement for the Property was executed

between the Company, Complainant and the Confirming
Party for the unit bearing No. MA1-1603 in the project
Mansions, Prime Park for a consideration of Rs.
1,03,65,000/-.

6. 06.04.2015 The Company sent a Statement of Account to the

Complainant showing that the Complainant has already
paid Rs. 1,07,15,815/- to the Company for its purchased
property.

7. 05.03.2020 After a delay of approximately 6 years and 2 months

from the date of agreed and promised possession, i.e.
January 2014, a communication from the Company was
received wherein, the Company purported to offer
possession of the property vide a possession letter with
a final demand of an additional sum of Rs.
75,62,473.10/- for handing over the possession to the
Complainant.

8. 05.06.2020 Aggrieved by the unreasonable demand of the

Company, the Complainant sent a Legal Notice to the
Company categorically pointing out the illegalities in the
Offer Letter and had also called upon the Company to
withdraw its impugned Offer Letter and unconditionally
hand over the possession of the Unit alongwith a
compensation for the delay in handing over the
7
 possession. (6 years and 2 months)

9. 01.08.2020 The Complainant did not receive any response from the
Company to its Legal Notice dated 05.06.2020.

Hence, this Complaint.

8
 Brief Facts

APPENDIX-D

1. The present complaint is being filed by Mr. Manu Singh R/o B-2/6,
Agrasen Apartments, Sector 7, Plot No. 10, Dwarka, New Delhi -
110075 (hereinafter “Complainant”) against BPTP Limited having its
registered office at OT-14, 3rd Floor, Next Door, Parklands, Sector – 76,
Faridabad, Haryana – 122004 (hereinafter ‘Company / Respondent’),
seeking effective possession and delayed possession charges in
connection with the delay in handing over of the effective possession of
unit MA – 1603 in Tower No. M1 (hereinafter ‘Unit’) in the Company’s
project “Mansions” Park Prime situated at Sector-66, Gurugram,
Haryana (hereinafter "Project").

The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present complaint, is stated
in brief, as follows –

2. That the Complainant vide an application for allotment dated

30.06.2010 applied for allotment / purchase of a unit in the Project.
Pertinently, the Complainant in the application opted for a construction
linked payment plan. At this juncture it is critical to state that a
construction linked payment plan for buying any apartment generally
requires the buyer to pay upfront a fixed percentage of booking
amount of the basic purchase price and the remaining amount is linked
to construction milestone. Hence, as per the construction linked
payment plan opted by the Complainant, cheques for the booking
amount i.e. approximately 10% of the basic sale price of the Unit was
also issued to the Company. Subsequently, vide an allotment cum
demand letter dated 23.08.2010, the Company allotted the Unit to the
Complainant. A copy of the application for allotment submitted by the
Complainant is attached hereunder and marked as Annexure C-1. A
copy of the allotment cum demand letter dated 23.08.2010 issued by
the Company is attached hereunder and marked as Annexure C-2.

3. That thereafter, a Flat Buyer’s Agreement dated 01.02.2011 qua the

Unit was also executed between the parties (hereinafter "FBA"). The
FBA provided for various critical details regarding the Unit (including but

9
 not limited to area, consideration, payment plan etc.). Certain key
provisions of the FBA are mentioned below:

a. The agreed super area of the Unit was 2764 sq. ft. Moreover, the
FBA categorically provided for increase / decrease in the super
area to the extent of 15% of the agreed super area and any
further change to the same was subject to consent of the
Complainant.

b. The sale consideration for the Unit was at the rate of Rs. 3,750/-
per sq. ft., however a discount of 4% was agreed between the
parties at the time of allotment and the revised rate was Rs.
3600/- per sq. ft. Therefore, the total basic sale consideration of
the Unit was Rs. 99,50,400/- exclusive of certain charges like;
development charges, club membership charges, etc.

c. The Company was required to hand over the possession of the

Unit to the Complainant within a period of 36 months from the
date of registration/booking of the unit and an additional period of
6 months as a grace period was also allowed. In other words, in
terms of the FBA, the possession was required to be handed over
latest by 01.01.2014 including such grace period.

4. It is pertinent to mention that the Complainant duly paid all the demands
raised by the Company from time to time depending upon the payment
plan linked to the stage of construction. In total, as on date, a sum of
Rs. 1,07,15,655.75/- has been paid by the Complainant towards the
Unit. It is pertinent to state that while demanding the instalments /
payments, the Company had time and again claimed that construction
of the Project / Unit is in full swing. Last such demand / payment
request as per the payment linked plan was made by the Company on
01.08.2012. Copies of receipts issued by the Company and / or
cheques depicting the payment made by the Complainant are attached
hereunder and marked as Annexure C – 3 (Colly). A Copy of ledger /
statement of account dated 06.04.2015 is attached hereunder and
marked as Annexure C - 4. Copies of payment request / demand made

10
 by the Company in connection with construction linked plan is attached
hereunder and marked as Annexure C – 5 (Colly).

5. It is critical to mention that despite timely payments, the Company

miserably failed to hand over the possession of the Unit within the
stipulated time under the pretext that the construction is going on in full
swing, the Company had collected all the instalments (as per the
construction linked plan) by 2012, yet it defaulted in delivering the
possession within the stipulated time.

6. That it was only after the gross delay of more than 6 years and 2
months from the due date of possession, that the Complainant received
a communication from the Company wherein the Company purported to
offer possession of the Unit (hereinafter “Offer Letter”). It is submitted
that the Offer Letter contained unreasonable demands for further
payments of Rs. 75,62,473.10/-, despite the fact that the Company was
liable to pay the compensation for delay in offering of the possession. It
is submitted that unwarranted and illegal acts of raising further
demands shows the ill intention of the Company to sway away from its
obligation to pay compensation for delay in handing over the
possession. Moreover, the Company had deliberately not accounted for
the appropriate compensation which the Complainant is entitled to
receive.

7. It is further submitted that most of the demanded amounts in the Offer

Letter are foul and outside the scope of the FBA. That the following
unreasonable demands and justification for delay were raised by the
Company in the Offer Letter:

a. Force Majeure: The Company has accounted a mere sum of Rs.

2,87,122 at the rate of Rs. 5 per sq. ft. towards the compensation
for delayed possession. Despite the fact that the alleged Offer
Letter has been issued to the Complainant after a delay of almost
six years two months, it appears that the Company has
ascertained the delay only from 18.05.2018 under the pretext of
‘Force Majeure’ clause in FBA. The Company has excluded 1615
days (approximately four and a half years) from the total delay on
account of: (i) non-issuance / delayed issuance of Occupation

11
 Certificate because of failure of Fire Department to grant the Fire
NOC; and (ii) ban on abstraction of ground water in January,
2011 which allegedly halted the Project due to scarcity of water.
In this regard it is pertinent to note that:

i. The Company has not provided any material in support of

its averments. In any event, going by the contents of the
Offer Letter, it is evident that the application for grant of
Fire NOC was itself made by the Company only in May,
2017, whereas, the construction was supposed to be
completed latest by January, 2014.

ii. The FBA was executed on 01.02.2011 which was after the
issuance of government’s notification of January, 2011
regarding restriction on abstraction of underground water
which clearly shows that the Company was well aware
about the notification at the time of promising the
possession within 42 months. Therefore, it cannot now be
allowed to rely upon the said notification to illegally justify
its delay.

iii. The element of delay on the part of Company is crystal

clear as no intimation or notice regarding the same was
ever issued by the Company. It was for the first time vide
the Offer Letter that the Company unilaterally sought to
revise the date of possession.

iv. It is a settled law that the Company, being an experienced

developer knew, even at the time when the allotment was
made and the FBA was executed that sometime would be
taken by the concerned authorities in issuance of relevant
certificates, but despite of it, the Company promised
possession in 42 months, therefore, now it cannot be
allowed to take the benefit of force majeure.

b. Preferential Location Charges and Private Terrace Charges:

Preferential Location Charges amounting to Rs. 9,93,900/-
(hereinafter ‘PLC’) and Private Terrace charges amounting to Rs.

12
 5,47,500/- are being frivolously demanded by the Company. The
said amounts are outside the purview of the agreed terms and
FBA executed between the parties. In this connection it is
submitted that at the time of making application for allotment, the
prospective buyer is required to either opt for a PLC unit or not
and accordingly PLC amount is incorporated in the allotment
application. The Complainant had neither opted for nor was he
allotted a preferentially located unit and the same is clearly
evident from the allotment application form which reflects that no
amount towards PLC was agreed. The act of unilateral relocation
of the Unit by the Company and raising demand for the same is
illegal and unjustified. Pertinently, no consent was obtained for
any relocation and the issue qua PLC was raised by the
Company for the first time in the Offer Letter. Moreover, it is
submitted that at the time of making of application for allotment
and allotment of the Unit it was represented by the Company that
the Project shall be consisting of 18 floors and the Unit was
situated at 16th floor. It was for the first time in the Offer Letter that
PLC and Private Terrace Charges were imposed. Upon raising
concern, Complainant was informed that since only 16 floors (as
against 18) have been constructed, Complainant’s Unit is now at
the top floor. A screenshot showing that the project Mansions
Park Prime has constructed 18 floors is annexed herewith as
Annexure C______.

c. Super area: That the Company has unilaterally increased the

super area from 2764 sq. ft. to 3605 sq. ft. approximately which
has led to an increase in the basic sale consideration of the Unit.
It is critical to state that neither any prior information/notice was
given to the Complainant nor the consent of the Complainant was
obtained for the same. Such unilateral conduct of the Company is
illegal and in violation of the terms of FBA. Infact, as per the FBA,
the Company could not have unilaterally increased the super
area beyond 15% of the agreed super area. In the facts of the
present case, the Company has arbitrarily made an unreasonable
increase of 841 sq. ft. which is more than 30% of the agreed
super area (i.e. 2764 sq. ft). It is a settled legal position that if an
increase in Super Area is more than the percentage provided in

13
 the agreement, then prior consent from the Complainant / allottee
would be necessary. Therefore, such a unilateral increase in
Super Area is untenable in law and the Complainant cannot be
made liable for payment of additional amount towards the same.

d. Interest on Delayed Payments: It is submitted that interest cannot

be charged if the Company itself has delayed the possession. It is
pertinent to note that interest/ compensation is granted only when
some loss has occurred. Whereas, the Company has failed to
establish that any loss has ever occasioned to them during this
transaction. In any event, the Company is attempting to charge
interest on delayed payments @18% p.a. which is not justified
due to the fact that when it comes to the Company to pay
compensation/ interest on delayed payments, it only provides
such compensation at a mere Rs. 5 per sq. ft. for every month of
delay after the actual date of agreed for handing over the
possession. Hence, in the interest of justice, compensation
payable to the Complainant should be reasonable and should
commensurate to the actual loss suffered by him.

e. GST: The Complainant has demanded GST to the tune of Rs.

8,99,272/-. It is submitted that the GST was introduced in the
year 2017 whereas the Unit was to be handed over to the
Complainant latest by 01.01.2014. Therefore, had the Company
timely constructed the Project / Unit, there would have been no
occasion for charging of GST. Since, the Company is solely liable
for the delay in offering the possession, the Complainant cannot
be made liable to pay GST charges.

f. Car Parking: The Company is frivolously demanding car parking

charges to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is a settled law that car
parking falls within the definition of common areas and facilities;
irrespective of it being open to the sky parking or stilted portion
used as parking space the same is not saleable independently as
a flat or along-with flat. Further, the Apex Court and Consumer
Forums in various judgements have clarified that despite
agreeing to charging of car parking in the agreement, the
Company cannot in law realize any amount from the Complainant

14
 towards car parking. The Company itself is liable to bear the
burden of not disclosing the area of car parking in the common
areas and, therefore, cannot demand proportionate amount of the
area of car parking from the Complainant.

g. Sewage treatment plant: The Company has frivolously demanded

sewage treatment plant charges @Rs. 17 per sq. ft. It is
submitted that this demand is out of purview of FBA executed
between the parties and is hence, liable to be dismissed.

The above said anomalies and illegal demands in the Offer Letter
clearly depicts the ill intent of the Company. The Company is attempting
to obfuscate the issue of delayed possession and the payment on
account of such delay by raising illegal demands and giving frivolous
justifications. Such conduct on part of the Company has gravely
prejudiced the Complainant in as much as it has resulted in undue
hardship and loss to Complainant. The complainant is at the moment
subject to a great deal of stress and financial hardships. A copy of the
letter dated 05.03.2020 (allegedly offering possession) is attached
herewith and marked as Annexure C _____.

8. That it is critical to state that although offer of possession was made by

Company on 05.03.2020, however, on a recent visit to the site by the
Complainant, it was observed that the Company has used inferior
quality of woodwork, fixtures, fittings widows, VRV/VRFT air
conditioning system, etc. The fact that overall construction is of a poor
quality clearly shows that the Offer Letter is also premature and is liable
to be withdrawn until the work is completed and the Unit is made fit for
handover. A copy of the various photographs of the site and the Project
are attached herewith and marked as Annexure C ______.

9. That on 05.06.2020, being aggrieved by the Company’s unreasonable

demand of Rs. 75,62,473.10/- before taking the possession, the
Complainant was compelled to send a Legal Notice to the Company.
The Complainant had categorically pointed out the illegalities in the
Offer Letter and had also called upon the Company to withdraw its
impugned Offer Letter and unconditionally hand over the possession of
the Unit alongwith a compensation for the delay in handing over the

15
 possession. It is clarified that due to inadvertence the due date of
possession in the legal notice has been considered as July, 2014 as
against 01.01.2014 and that the discount towards basic sale price was
mistakenly not considered in the Legal Notice dated 05.06.2020. A copy
of the Legal Notice dated 05.06.2020 alongwith speed post receipt and
the e-mail are attached herewith and marked as Annexure C____.

10. That despite receiving the Legal Notice, the Company did not reply
to the same. Moreover, the Company had been regularly corresponding
with the Complainant in order to illegally convince the Complainant for
making payment of the alleged demands. Further, it has also recently
come to Complainant’s knowledge that various critical licenses
(including registration under RERA for the relevant phase(s) of the
project) qua the project are in not in place. Evidently, the Company has
violated the law as well as the terms of the allotment and FBA.
Moreover, the fact that the Company has miserably defaulted in
completion of the Project is also evident from other cases which have
been decided against the Company with respect to the same Project by
this Hon’ble Tribunal.

11. In view of the foregoing, the present Complaint has been filed
before this Hon’ble Tribunal seeking direction to the Company to hand
over the effective possession of the Unit to the Complainant without
raising any further monetary demands and to pay delayed possession
charges @ of 10.45% for a delay of 6 years and 7 months (as on the
date of filing the present Complaint).

12. That the Hon’ble Authority has the necessary jurisdiction to

adjudicate the present complaint.

16
 Issues to be decided
APPENDIX-E

1. Whether the Complainant is liable to pay the demands made by

the Company?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to compensation @ 10.45 %

p.a. amounting to Rs. 73,71,924.66/- for a delay of 6 years and 7
months (as on the date of filing the present Complaint)?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to costs of litigation?

17
 Relief Sought
APPENDIX-F

The Complainants seek the following reliefs from the Company:

1. Withdraw the Possession Letter for being premature

2. Complete the Unit and unconditionally handover the possession of the

Unit;

3. Pay a compensation @ 10.45% p.a. amounting to Rs. 73,71,924.66/- to

the Complainant (for a delay of 6 years and 7 months approximately as
on the date of filing the present Complaint)

4. Pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum till the date of
actual recovery.

5. Litigation costs of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

6. Such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Authority may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

18
 Affidavit

APPENDIX-G

BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM,

HARYANA

AFFIDAVIT

I Manu Singh, S/o Vijay Singh Yadav, R/o B-2/6, Agrasen Apartments, Sector-7,
Plot No. 10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as
under:

1. That all the facts and submission made in this complaint are true and
correct and nothing material has been concealed.
2. That no similar complaint is pending before any other Authority, Court
of Law, Consumer Commission or any other Tribunal.
3. That a Draft/ Banker’s Cheque bearing No.…………
date………..of……..bank of Rs. ……… is annexed as prescribed fee.

Date:
Place:
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
The Statement made above are true to my Knowledge.

Date:
Place:
DEPONENT

19