- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Himachal RERA Orders Full Refund to Homebuyer for Misleading Information
Himachal RERA Orders Full Refund to Homebuyer for Misleading Information
The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA) has ruled in favour of a homebuyer who was misled about the size and availability of their apartment. The bench, led by Justice Rajeev Verma, ordered a full refund of the investment amount (₹10,01,001) for a flat in the "Mashobra Hills" project located in Shimla.
The homebuyer invested in flat number 402 based on assurances from the builder's sales director that the project was legally sound and had all necessary approvals. However, upon receiving the agreement for sale in November 2023, the buyer discovered significant discrepancies between what was promised and the actual terms. These discrepancies included a much smaller flat size than advertised and the unavailability of the specific flat type (2BHK Duplex Skyvilla) promised by the builder.
The buyer raised concerns about the discrepancies and sought a resolution. Feeling aggrieved after no agreement could be reached, the buyer approached HPRERA requesting a full refund with interest.
The builder contended that the buyer relied on emails and documents not part of the official record and not included in the legal pleadings. They also argued a willingness to refund the amount after deducting a 10 per cent booking charge.
HPRERA determined that the builder violated Section 12 of RERA 2016 by misleading the buyer about the flat's size and availability. The promised 2BHK Duplex Skyvilla simply did not exist, and the actual flat size was significantly smaller than advertised (482.9 sq. ft. vs. 1510 sq. ft.).
HPRERA ruled in favour of the buyer, granting a full refund of the investment amount along with interest. The builder was directed to complete the refund within 15 days from the date the refund request was filed.
HPRERA rejected the builder's argument regarding a 10 per cent booking charge deduction. The Authority clarified that no such provision exists under the RERA Act.