Pranav B Prem

In a reasoned and significant ruling, the Adjudicating Officer Bench of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram, dismissed a claim for compensation filed by homebuyers against BPTP Limited and Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd., holding that an allottee who has opted to stay in a delayed project and has already been awarded interest for such delay is not entitled to seek any further or separate compensation for the same cause of action.

Also Read: NCLAT Chennai Rules Inherent Powers Under Rule 11 Cannot Be Used to Recall Orders Allegedly Passed by Fraud or Without Jurisdiction

The Bench comprising Rajender Kumar, Adjudicating Officer, was adjudicating Complaint No. 2400 of 2023 filed by Navneet Kumar and Suman Choudhary (also known as Suman Dhillon), who had booked a 4BHK flat bearing No. MI-404 in the “Mansions Park Prime” project situated at Sector-66, Gurugram. The booking was made on 03.07.2010 for a total consideration of ₹1,20,41,968 under a construction-linked payment plan, and a Flat Buyer Agreement was executed on 16.09.2010. As per Clause 3.1 of the agreement, the builder was required to deliver possession within 36 months, i.e., by 03.07.2013.

The complainants alleged that despite having paid over 92% of the total sale consideration by July 2014 and remaining compliant with the payment schedule, the builder failed to deliver possession on time. The project was significantly delayed, and possession was eventually offered only after a lapse of seven years, accompanied by additional charges including VAT. Aggrieved by the delay, the complainants had earlier approached the Authority by filing Complaint No. 2195 of 2018, which was decided in their favour on 03.09.2019. The Authority had directed the builder to pay monthly delay interest at the rate of 10.45% per annum from the due date of possession until the offer of possession.

In compliance with that order, the builder had credited ₹9,93,779 to the complainants and also accounted for further credits, including ₹2,87,122 at the time of offer of possession and ₹4,25,809 over the years. Despite this, the complainants filed the present complaint seeking additional compensation under various heads such as rental loss (₹1 crore), depreciation (₹26.49 lakhs), interest loss, mental agony (₹10 lakhs), travel expenses, and litigation costs.

The respondents, represented through counsel, argued that the present complaint was not maintainable since the reliefs sought pertain to the same delay already adjudicated in the earlier complaint. They emphasized that under the RERA framework, compensation is only available to those allottees who choose to exit the project, whereas those who opt to stay are entitled only to delay interest. It was further submitted that the complainants had not paid the full sale consideration and that no further relief could be granted in view of the earlier adjudication.

The Authority accepted the respondents’ arguments and emphasized the scheme of Section 18(1) of the RERA Act, 2016. It noted that the main provision permits both interest and compensation when the allottee chooses to withdraw from the project. However, the proviso to Section 18(1) clearly provides that where an allottee chooses to remain in the project, only monthly interest is payable for the period of delay. Rule 15(1) of the Haryana Real Estate Rules, 2017, prescribes that the applicable interest is to be calculated at the State Bank of India’s highest marginal cost of lending rate plus two percent. The Authority stated that this interest is deemed to be compensation under law.

The Adjudicating Officer further relied upon the ruling of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Ranjan Misra [Appeal No. 70 of 2023], which held that only those allottees who withdraw from the project are eligible for both interest and compensation, while those who continue are entitled solely to monthly interest until possession.

Also Read: NCLT Hyderabad Dismisses Section 9 IBC Petition Due to Non-Receipt of Payment by Corporate Debtor in Subcontracted Work

The Authority concluded that since the complainants had already received interest for the delay under an earlier order of the Authority and had chosen not to withdraw from the project, there existed no legal basis to grant separate or additional compensation under the same cause of action. It observed that the Parliament, through the RERA framework, did not intend to allow double remedies in such situations. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

Appearance

Counsel for Complainant: Mr. Sukhbir Yadav

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Harshit Batra

Cause Title: Navneet Kumar & Anr V. BPTP Limited & Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

Case No: Complaint No. 2400 of 2023

Coram: Rajender Kumar [Adjudicating Officer]