Appeal No. 57 of 2021

What the appeal concerns

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered a promoter's appeal against an Adjudicating Officer's order dated 5 February 2021. The Adjudicating Officer had directed M/s. VGN Homes Private Limited to refund Rs.21,95,520 with interest at 10.05%, pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000, and pay litigation costs of Rs.25,000.

The promoter challenged the decision on several grounds:

• The construction agreement required disputes to be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the builder.
• The home buyer had allegedly delayed payments and was therefore not entitled to interest or compensation.
• Environmental clearance requirements had delayed completion and possession.
• The promoter had already paid Rs.55,050 as delay compensation under the construction agreement.

Arbitration and real estate remedies

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal rejected the promoter's argument that the arbitration clause prevented the home buyer from approaching the real estate authority. Relying on the Supreme Court decision quoted in the document, the Tribunal found that a person who chooses a specific statutory remedy need not be sent to arbitration.

The Tribunal noted that the construction agreement did not specifically provide for a refund. It therefore found no error in the Adjudicating Officer entertaining the buyer's claims for refund and compensation under the Real Estate Regulation And Development Act 2016.

Earlier delay compensation

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the promoter had paid Rs.55,050 by cheque as delay compensation and that the home buyer had accepted it. The buyer had disclosed the payment in the complaint and proof affidavit.

The Tribunal stated that, because compensation had been paid and accepted under the construction agreement, a further claim for mental agony compensation and interest was not acceptable.

Alleged payment default and incomplete outcome

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the promoter produced no document showing delayed payment by the home buyer. The promoter had also not used the agreement clauses allowing termination or interest for payment default. A letter seeking Rs.73,721 as a handing over payment did not establish delay by the buyer.

The supplied text begins discussing the promoter's environmental clearance argument but ends before that issue is decided. It also does not include the final operative portion stating whether the appeal was allowed, dismissed or partly allowed.