Rejoinder of Nirman Realtors & Developers re: RERA orders to refund Viviana flat-buyer
Below is the emailed rejoinder (and subsequent exchange of correspondence) relating to this article about Nirman Realtor's non-compliance of RERA orders on Viviana project, Neral.
Dear Mr. Krishna Rao,
It appears that either you have received incomplete information or you have distorted the facts relating to the issue involved in the matter. Some relevant facts relating to the case are as under:-
The Complainant, Suverna Deokule approached the RERA authority with false and misleading statements on oath inter-alia that in the Agreement for Sale dated 7th May 2015, the Respondent has mentioned the composition of the subject flat as 1 BHK instead of 1RK.
Answer:-The Complainant suppressed that firstly in the agreement no where it is mentioned that flat agreed to sale to the complainant is 1 BHK as falsely alleged. Secondly, in the Agreement for Sale, the Nirman has annexed floor plan of the building Block No.3 at Annexure F therein clearly showing that the flat purchased by the Complainant i.e. Flat No.A-203 is 1 RK flat and not 1 BHK.
Another grievance made by the Complainant that the Nirman has delayed the construction of the building without any cogent reason is totally false and baseless.
Answer:- The construction of the building has been delayed due to non-availability of sand which has been duly informed and was very well to the knowledge of the Complainant. By the year of 2013-2014, Nirman has already completed the construction of building to the extent of 60 %, however, in or around the year 2013-14, one Awaaz Foundation has made several complaints against illegal sand mining from cricks and river in Raigad District. Therefore, in the year 2014 National Green Tribunal (NGT) banned sand mining in coastal region for the reason that the said mining was damaging natural ecosystem. The said ban continued for about two years between 2014-16. In the year 2016, the said ban was lifted upon promise made by the State Government that the mining will not damage environment eco system. On account of the said ban, the sand was not available for the construction in the entire Raigad District. Even after the ban lifted by the State Government at the end of the year 2016, the sand was not available for almost one and half year i.e. between the year 2016-2017 in reasonable quantity/good quality to enable the Respondent to complete the construction as the demand for sand is more than the supply available. The aforesaid fact has been categorically brought to the notice of the Complainant by the Respondent by and under its letter dated 30th November, 2015 which has been suppressed by the Complainant from RERA as well as you.
Para 8(c) of the said Agreement, the Complainant has confirmed and agreed that Nirman is entitled to reasonable extension of time for giving delivery of possession of the subject flat if the completion of the building is delayed for the reason beyond the control Nirman. But still, contrary to the said covenant the Complainant made complaint to RERA.
The Complainant also suppressed from RERA that Nirman has financially supported the Complainant to enable her to make payment of the stamp duty/registration charges owing to their long standing friendly relations. One of the Director of the Respondent i.e. Mr. Ajit Marathe has paid a sum of Rs.85,000/- to the Complainant to enable her to make payment of stamp duty and registration charges in respect of the subject flat as a refundable money in 30 days. However, till date the Complainant has not refunded the said sum of Rs.85,000/-. Therefore, RERA has directed Nirman to set off the said amount from final decree amount.
Inspite of unavoidable circumstances, the building Viviana, Block 3 in which the subject flat is situated is nearing to completion as only painting work in the subject flat in the building is pending. Thus, the subject flat in the complaint as well as entire building is nearing to possess which is suppressed from you.
Reply to your proposed press release:-
We take strong exceptions few wordings mentioned in the proposed article as follows :-
Nirman Developers repeatedly defy RERA Orders, avoid refunding Viviana flat-buyer”
Reply:- Nirman has not defied the order of RERA. Nirman by and under its letter dated 28th March, 2018 informed the Complainant that the total sum of Rs.20,71,912/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred Twelve Only) being award amount alongwith interest will be disbursed to the Complaint in three equal instalments of sum of Rs.6,90,637/- (Rupees Six Lakh Ninety Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Seven Only) each and that the Appellants have assured to make first instalment of sum of Rs.6,90,637/- on or before 31st May 2018. The aforesaid fact was also brought to the notice of RERA at the hearing took place on 3rd May, 2018.
Those who have purchased flats from Nirman Realtors & Developers Pvt Ltd (NRDL) should become alert after seeing the builder's blatant defiance of RERA orders, and their tricks to avoid repaying a home-buyer Rs 18 lakhs plus interest
Reply : Complaint Lodged by the Mrs. Suverna is an disputed question of law and facts. The matter is subjudice in the court of law as appeal filed by Nirman is pending. Therefore, only on the basis of said litigation, the observation made by you is totally incorrect. It gives an impression to the reader who is not aware of the abovemetioned facts which obviously not mentioned in the article, that buyers should stay away from the Nirman or their project. Such, impression is totally incorrect. You being news reporters must be cautious of this.
“Defying the RERA order, Nirman unilaterally proposed a 9-months repayment schedule, but did not actually pay a single rupee to Suvarna
Reply:- As stated above first instalment was proposed to be made on 31st May, 2018 therefore there is no question of Nirman not paying paying single rupee as incorrectly stated. Nirman is still abide by its commitment of making payment of award amount in equal instalments as stated before RERA. One thing to be noted that the Complainant has not payment of consideration in one stroke or in single instalment therefore, Nirman is also entitled to opportunity for repayment in instalment instead of lum sum payment at one stroke as insisted by Complainant.
“Following a hearing on 2nd May, Kapadnis promptly passed an order directed at the District Collector, Raigarh, for execution of the warrant under section 40(1) as arrears of land revenue
Reply :- Nirman has categorically stated in the appeal that project namely Viviana Block-3 in which the subject flat is situated is nearing to completion as almost 95% of the project work is completed and Nirman is expected to handover the units soon. Therefore, the impunged order dated 3rd May, 2018 directing to issue recovery warrant for recovery of award amount as arrears of land revenue will prejudice the interest of the purchasers who have booked there units in the said project. The said order is contrary to principle of equity and balance of convenience.
“It must be noted that this appeal has been filed 82 days after the first order, and what is worse, it was filed after the order for its execution was given vide the second order”
Reply:- Appeal has been filed for correction and modification of Decree dated 28/02/2018. The said corrections for operative order was overlooked by RERA on 03/05/2018 further, RERA passed order for issuance of recovery warrant. Therefore, Nirman has filed Appeal against the order dated 03/05/2018. As per Section 43 of RERA an Appeal can be filed within 60 days from the date of the Order uploaded on website . order was uploaded in the second week of May, immediately in weeks time appeal is filed. Therefore, the Appeal has been filed in time and there is no delay
“How long will Nirman Developers continue to avoid repaying their aggrieved flat-buyer? Wait and watch
Reply:- As mentioned above, when the matter is subjudice in the court, you are not expected to run a parallel audience poll and seek readers opinion in this fashion. This would amount to interference with court of justice. More so forward wrong message amongst readers.
We further takes strong exception against displaying the photograph of the directors of Nirman.
We hope and trust that the abovementioned maters facts and explanation has thrown light on the actual dispute between the parties. You will appreciate that the same is purely personal dispute which does not required to make public. The Complainant, Mrs. Suverna is attempting to intentionally harass Nirman, by defaming them in public. The Complainant has intentionally forwarded incorrect rather incomplete information to you.
You are therefore requested not to associate with the Complainant with her sinister object and withdraw the proposed article.
Regards,
Nirman Realtor and Developers Ltd.
It appears that either you have received incomplete information or you have distorted the facts relating to the issue involved in the matter. Some relevant facts relating to the case are as under:-
The Complainant, Suverna Deokule approached the RERA authority with false and misleading statements on oath inter-alia that in the Agreement for Sale dated 7th May 2015, the Respondent has mentioned the composition of the subject flat as 1 BHK instead of 1RK.
Answer:-The Complainant suppressed that firstly in the agreement no where it is mentioned that flat agreed to sale to the complainant is 1 BHK as falsely alleged. Secondly, in the Agreement for Sale, the Nirman has annexed floor plan of the building Block No.3 at Annexure F therein clearly showing that the flat purchased by the Complainant i.e. Flat No.A-203 is 1 RK flat and not 1 BHK.
Another grievance made by the Complainant that the Nirman has delayed the construction of the building without any cogent reason is totally false and baseless.
Answer:- The construction of the building has been delayed due to non-availability of sand which has been duly informed and was very well to the knowledge of the Complainant. By the year of 2013-2014, Nirman has already completed the construction of building to the extent of 60 %, however, in or around the year 2013-14, one Awaaz Foundation has made several complaints against illegal sand mining from cricks and river in Raigad District. Therefore, in the year 2014 National Green Tribunal (NGT) banned sand mining in coastal region for the reason that the said mining was damaging natural ecosystem. The said ban continued for about two years between 2014-16. In the year 2016, the said ban was lifted upon promise made by the State Government that the mining will not damage environment eco system. On account of the said ban, the sand was not available for the construction in the entire Raigad District. Even after the ban lifted by the State Government at the end of the year 2016, the sand was not available for almost one and half year i.e. between the year 2016-2017 in reasonable quantity/good quality to enable the Respondent to complete the construction as the demand for sand is more than the supply available. The aforesaid fact has been categorically brought to the notice of the Complainant by the Respondent by and under its letter dated 30th November, 2015 which has been suppressed by the Complainant from RERA as well as you.
Para 8(c) of the said Agreement, the Complainant has confirmed and agreed that Nirman is entitled to reasonable extension of time for giving delivery of possession of the subject flat if the completion of the building is delayed for the reason beyond the control Nirman. But still, contrary to the said covenant the Complainant made complaint to RERA.
The Complainant also suppressed from RERA that Nirman has financially supported the Complainant to enable her to make payment of the stamp duty/registration charges owing to their long standing friendly relations. One of the Director of the Respondent i.e. Mr. Ajit Marathe has paid a sum of Rs.85,000/- to the Complainant to enable her to make payment of stamp duty and registration charges in respect of the subject flat as a refundable money in 30 days. However, till date the Complainant has not refunded the said sum of Rs.85,000/-. Therefore, RERA has directed Nirman to set off the said amount from final decree amount.
Inspite of unavoidable circumstances, the building Viviana, Block 3 in which the subject flat is situated is nearing to completion as only painting work in the subject flat in the building is pending. Thus, the subject flat in the complaint as well as entire building is nearing to possess which is suppressed from you.
Reply to your proposed press release:-
We take strong exceptions few wordings mentioned in the proposed article as follows :-
Nirman Developers repeatedly defy RERA Orders, avoid refunding Viviana flat-buyer”
Reply:- Nirman has not defied the order of RERA. Nirman by and under its letter dated 28th March, 2018 informed the Complainant that the total sum of Rs.20,71,912/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred Twelve Only) being award amount alongwith interest will be disbursed to the Complaint in three equal instalments of sum of Rs.6,90,637/- (Rupees Six Lakh Ninety Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Seven Only) each and that the Appellants have assured to make first instalment of sum of Rs.6,90,637/- on or before 31st May 2018. The aforesaid fact was also brought to the notice of RERA at the hearing took place on 3rd May, 2018.
Those who have purchased flats from Nirman Realtors & Developers Pvt Ltd (NRDL) should become alert after seeing the builder's blatant defiance of RERA orders, and their tricks to avoid repaying a home-buyer Rs 18 lakhs plus interest
Reply : Complaint Lodged by the Mrs. Suverna is an disputed question of law and facts. The matter is subjudice in the court of law as appeal filed by Nirman is pending. Therefore, only on the basis of said litigation, the observation made by you is totally incorrect. It gives an impression to the reader who is not aware of the abovemetioned facts which obviously not mentioned in the article, that buyers should stay away from the Nirman or their project. Such, impression is totally incorrect. You being news reporters must be cautious of this.
“Defying the RERA order, Nirman unilaterally proposed a 9-months repayment schedule, but did not actually pay a single rupee to Suvarna
Reply:- As stated above first instalment was proposed to be made on 31st May, 2018 therefore there is no question of Nirman not paying paying single rupee as incorrectly stated. Nirman is still abide by its commitment of making payment of award amount in equal instalments as stated before RERA. One thing to be noted that the Complainant has not payment of consideration in one stroke or in single instalment therefore, Nirman is also entitled to opportunity for repayment in instalment instead of lum sum payment at one stroke as insisted by Complainant.
“Following a hearing on 2nd May, Kapadnis promptly passed an order directed at the District Collector, Raigarh, for execution of the warrant under section 40(1) as arrears of land revenue
Reply :- Nirman has categorically stated in the appeal that project namely Viviana Block-3 in which the subject flat is situated is nearing to completion as almost 95% of the project work is completed and Nirman is expected to handover the units soon. Therefore, the impunged order dated 3rd May, 2018 directing to issue recovery warrant for recovery of award amount as arrears of land revenue will prejudice the interest of the purchasers who have booked there units in the said project. The said order is contrary to principle of equity and balance of convenience.
“It must be noted that this appeal has been filed 82 days after the first order, and what is worse, it was filed after the order for its execution was given vide the second order”
Reply:- Appeal has been filed for correction and modification of Decree dated 28/02/2018. The said corrections for operative order was overlooked by RERA on 03/05/2018 further, RERA passed order for issuance of recovery warrant. Therefore, Nirman has filed Appeal against the order dated 03/05/2018. As per Section 43 of RERA an Appeal can be filed within 60 days from the date of the Order uploaded on website . order was uploaded in the second week of May, immediately in weeks time appeal is filed. Therefore, the Appeal has been filed in time and there is no delay
“How long will Nirman Developers continue to avoid repaying their aggrieved flat-buyer? Wait and watch
Reply:- As mentioned above, when the matter is subjudice in the court, you are not expected to run a parallel audience poll and seek readers opinion in this fashion. This would amount to interference with court of justice. More so forward wrong message amongst readers.
We further takes strong exception against displaying the photograph of the directors of Nirman.
We hope and trust that the abovementioned maters facts and explanation has thrown light on the actual dispute between the parties. You will appreciate that the same is purely personal dispute which does not required to make public. The Complainant, Mrs. Suverna is attempting to intentionally harass Nirman, by defaming them in public. The Complainant has intentionally forwarded incorrect rather incomplete information to you.
You are therefore requested not to associate with the Complainant with her sinister object and withdraw the proposed article.
Regards,
Nirman Realtor and Developers Ltd.
-------------------------------------------------
My response to this rejoinder was as follows:
Dear Sir,
1) Many thanks for your prompt and detailed rebuttal/rejoinder. Much appreciated.
2)
Your rejoinder will be prominently published, verbatim, along with the
draft press release, in such a manner that the readers will have a
chance to judge for themselves the factual position regarding various
points.
3) Your rejoinder will also be sent to
Ms Suvarna Deokule for her surrejoinder to various points, as you allege
that she has misrepresented before the RERA Authority. I will request
her to support her statements with available documentary proofs, if any.
4)
In my humble opinion, many points that you have argued (e.g. delay due
to sand shortage) were earlier pleaded before the RERA member/judge, and
these points are noted in the "speaking order" dated 28th Feb.
Therefore, the RERA order that was passed has already considered these
points. Moreover, if the RERA judge had felt that it is justified for
you to repay Ms. Deokule in installments over several months, I am sure
that he would have written that in his order. As no such period is
mentioned in the order, and as the subsequent order to District
Collector Raigarh has been passed by RERA in May, it seems evident that
immediate refund without delay was envisaged by the earlier order.
5) Your subsequent appeal, filed on 19th May, does not support your claim that you have intention to refund Ms. Deokule.
6) I will consider not publishing the individual photos of the directors with the article.
7)
Our complete exchange of correspondence, including this reply, will be
published as links along with the article, to enable the readers to come
to their own conclusions.
8) There is no
question of my withdrawing the said article, as it is very much in the
interest of the flat-purchasing public to know and understand the
various facts of this matter, and about the latest RERA orders
pertaining to them.
Thanking you once again,
Yours sincerely,
Krishnaraj Rao
------------------------------------------------------
Sir,
Further to my reply to your
rejoinder, I would like to add three documentary proofs that Ms Deokule
sent in support of her claim that a 1BHK was offered and sold to her,
and not a 1RK as claimed by you in your email. Please see the attached files with reference to the below points:
1)
The email sent to Ms Deokule by your representative, Mr Kaustubh, had
an attached poster which stated that Viviana project had "1BHK flats
only" as item no. 1 listed under "Viviana project amenities".
2)
Your PPT presentation has a slide that shows 1BHK of 315 and 333 sq ft
carpet area. No other configuration is even mentioned in your PPT.
3) Last but not least, the receipt issued by you to Ms Deokule states that the payment is towards 1BHK.
Yours sincerely,
Krishnaraj Rao
PS: I would like to gently remind you that the controversy regarding
1BHK versus 1RK was raised by your email, and not by my draft article.
Nowhere in my draft article is it mentioned that Ms Deokule purchased a
1BHK; it is only referred to as a "flat".
Click here for attachments accompanying my reply.
------------------------------------------------------
Click here to read Supriya Deokule's surrejoinder to Nirman Realtors' email (Coloured paragraphs) are her replies.
Comments
Post a Comment