Haryana RERA Clarifies Homebuyers Opting To Stay In Project Cannot Seek Compensation, Dismisses Claim Against BPTP

Under the RERA, 2016 framework, the AO is appointed under Section 71 by the Authority in consultation with the State Government. The AO must be a person who is or has been a District Judge. The AO is empowered to conduct inquiries and adjudicate complaints seeking compensation under Sections 12, 14, 18, and 19 of the Act.

Background Facts

Homebuyer (Complainant) purchased a 4BHK flat in the builder's (Respondent) project named “Mansions Park Prime” located in Sector-66, Gurugram for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1.20 crore. The flat was booked under a construction-linked payment plan. As per the flat buyer agreement executed in September 2010, the builder was required to hand over possession by 3 July 2013.

Due to the delay in handing over possession, the homebuyer filed a complaint before the Authority seeking delay interest. On 3 September 2019, the Authority allowed the complaint and directed the builder to pay monthly interest at the rate of 10.45% per annum for each month of delay.

Later, the homebuyer approached the Adjudicating Officer Bench with a fresh complaint, seeking compensation under various heads including rental loss, depreciation, loss of interest, mental agony, travel expenses and litigation costs.

Contentions by BPTP

Builder contended that the homebuyer is not entitled to claim compensation under multiple heads if they intend to stay in the project. According to the builder, only delay possession charges are permissible under the scheme of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Observation and Direction by Authority

Authority observed that the homebuyer did not wish to withdraw from the project but only sought compensation for the delay in possession. As per the proviso to Section 18(1) of the RERA Act, a buyer who stays in the project is entitled to interest for every month of delay until possession is given.

Authority observed that under Rule 15(1) of the Haryana RERA Rules, this interest is calculated at the SBI's highest marginal cost of lending rate plus 2 percent. This interest is treated as compensation for the delay and the law does not allow for separate or additional compensation beyond this.

Authority referred to the decision of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Ranjan Misra [Appeal No. 70 of 2023], where it was held that if an allottee chooses to exit the project, they are entitled to both interest and compensation. However, if the allottee decides to stay in the project, they are entitled only to monthly interest until possession is handed over.

Tribunal in that case clarified that the legislative intent under the RERA Act is to grant compensation only to those allottees who withdraw from the project and not to those who continue with it.

Authority held that since the homebuyer had already been awarded delayed possession compensation for the same cause of action, there was no ground to allow additional or separate compensation for the delay in construction. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.

Case – Navneet Kumar & Anr Versus BPTP Limited & Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

Citation – Complaint No. 2400 of 2023

Counsel for Complainant – Mr. Sukhbir Yadav, Advocate

Counsel for Respondent - Mr. Harshit Batra, Advocate