Haryana RERA: Allottees Given Delay Interest Cannot Seek Additional Compensation
Sangeetha Prathap
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), presided over by Rajender Kumar, has held that an allottee who has already been awarded interest for delayed possession cannot seek any further compensation on the same ground. The complaint was filed by Sharad Bhargava HUF against M/s Silverglades Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., seeking additional compensation over and above the delay interest already granted by the Authority in 2021.
The complainant had purchased a commercial unit—Unit No. GF-66 in “The Merchant Plaza”, Sector 88, Gurugram—in February 2015 for a total consideration of ₹56.87 lakh under a construction-linked payment plan. A Builder Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties on 12 June 2015, under which possession was due by 30 May 2017. The builder failed to complete construction within the agreed period, and the complainant eventually paid ₹51.55 lakh. After a delay of more than five years, the complainant approached the Adjudicating Officer seeking ₹5 lakh for mental and physical agony, ₹3 lakh towards litigation costs and ₹10 lakh towards appreciation value.
It was alleged that the builder violated Section 11(4), engaged in unfair trade practices, failed to provide agreed facilities and did not execute the conveyance deed despite the issuance of the occupancy certificate. The complainant argued that the delay interest previously granted by the Authority on 28 September 2021 was insufficient to compensate for the prolonged delay.
The builder opposed the complaint, stating that the complainant had already approached the Authority in Complaint No. 3041/2020 for delay-compensation charges. That complaint had been allowed, and the builder had been directed to pay interest at the prescribed rate on a monthly basis for the delay in handing over possession. The builder further informed that an appeal against that order was pending before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT), and the complainant had concealed this fact in the present proceedings. It was therefore argued that the complainant could not seek additional compensation for the same cause of action.
Upon hearing both sides, the Adjudicating Officer held that an allottee who chooses to remain in the project and does not seek withdrawal is entitled only to interest for every month of delay until possession, not additional compensation. The Officer relied on the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal’s decision in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Ranjan Misra, and also referred to the Bombay High Court decision in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and the Supreme Court judgment in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudesh Goyal. These authorities clarify that interest awarded for delayed possession is compensatory in nature, covering the consequences of the delay itself.
Regarding the allegation that the builder failed to execute the conveyance deed, the Adjudicating Officer held that such issues fall outside his jurisdiction. Under Section 71 of the Act, the Adjudicating Officer can adjudicate compensation only for violations of Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19. Issues under Sections 11(4) and 17 must be raised before the Authority.
Also Read: Project Registration Cannot Be Extended Beyond One Year Under Section 6, Clarifies WBREAT
Since the complainant had already received interest for delayed possession and no independent grounds for additional compensation were established, the complaint was dismissed. The order directed that the complainant may approach the Authority separately regarding the conveyance deed if so advised.
Appearance
Counsel for Complainant: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Kohli, Adv
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Harshit Batra and Ms. Tanya, Adv
Cause Title: Sharad Bhargava HUF versus M/S Silver Glades Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Case No: Complaint No. 15-2023
Coram: Shri. Rajender Kumar (Adjudicating Officer)
