Pranav B Prem

The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has held that a homebuyer who chooses to continue in a delayed real estate project is entitled only to statutory interest for the period of delay and cannot claim compensation, rent or litigation expenses in addition. Dismissing the complaint, the Authority ruled that compensation under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is available only when an allottee withdraws from the project.

Also Read: No Proof Of Allotment: Haryana RERA Dismisses Homebuyer’s Complaint Against Vatika Ltd

The matter was decided by Adjudicating Officer Rajinder Singh Rai, who examined a complaint filed by homebuyer Vandana Negi against Address Infrastructures Private Limited in relation to a residential project in Mohali.

According to the complaint, Negi had entered into an Agreement for Sale dated February 15, 2023 for purchase of an apartment in the developer’s project. As per the agreement, possession was promised by December 2023. However, possession was not delivered within the stipulated time. Negi alleged that the developer misled her by claiming that it had obtained, or was in the process of obtaining, an extension under RERA, and thereafter stopped responding to her communications.

Earlier, by an order dated August 14, 2025, the Authority had already granted Negi statutory interest for the delay in handing over possession, in terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act. Despite this, she filed the present complaint seeking additional reliefs, including ₹40,000 per month towards rent and mental harassment, and ₹1 lakh towards litigation expenses.

During the proceedings, counsel for the complainant argued that the delay amounted to a breach of the Agreement for Sale, entitling the allottee to compensation and costs in addition to interest. It was contended that the developer’s conduct caused financial loss and harassment, and therefore warranted further monetary relief.

The developer opposed the complaint on the ground of maintainability. It was submitted that the complainant had consciously chosen not to withdraw from the project and had already availed the statutory remedy of interest for delay. According to the developer, Section 18 of the RERA Act does not permit an allottee to seek compensation or other damages while continuing in the project.

After examining the statutory framework, the Adjudicating Officer placed reliance on the wording of Section 18 of the RERA Act. He observed that the provision clearly draws a distinction between two situations: one where the allottee withdraws from the project, and another where the allottee chooses to continue. In the former case, the allottee is entitled to refund along with interest and compensation, whereas in the latter case, the allottee is entitled only to interest for every month of delay till handing over of possession.

The Authority noted that Section 18 “makes it crystal clear that allottee/complainant can only seek compensation, if he/she withdraws from the project. Otherwise, if he/she does not intend to withdraw from the project, he/she shall be paid only interest for every month of delay, till handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.” It further recorded that this statutory remedy had already been availed by the complainant.

Also Read: Haryana RERA Orders Emaar MGF To Pay 10.85% Interest To Homebuyer For Six-Year Delay In Possession

The Adjudicating Officer also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), wherein it was held that compensation is a distinct remedy under RERA and becomes available only when an allottee opts to exit the project. Applying this principle, the Authority concluded that Negi, having chosen to remain bound by the Agreement for Sale and having already received interest for delay, could not seek additional compensation, rent or litigation expenses. In view of these findings, the Punjab RERA dismissed the complaint, holding that no further relief was permissible under Section 18 of the RERA Act once the allottee had elected to continue in the project and had already been granted interest for the delay.

Appearance

For Complainant: Sanjay Singh;

For Respondents: Advocate Mohammad Sartaj Khan

Cause Title: Vandana Negi v. Address Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Ankit Sidana

Case No: RERA/AdC/0055 of 2024

Coram: Adjudicating Officer Rajinder Singh Rai