Haryana RERA Tightens Compensation Scope For Homebuyers In Delay Cases

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority’s Adjudicating Officer, Rajender Kumar, has recently ruled that allottees who have already received interest for delayed possession from the Authority are not entitled to seek any additional compensation before the Adjudicating Officer (AO).

In this case, the complainant sought further compensation from the builder, arguing that the interest for delay granted by the Authority on September 28, 2021, was inadequate.

The AO reasoned that under Section 18 of RERA and the Haryana RERA Rules, the statutory scheme distinguishes between two remedies: (i) refund with compensation if the allottee opts to withdraw, and (ii) delay interest alone if the allottee chooses to stay in the project and accept possession.

Once interest calculated at the State Bank of India’s highest MCLR plus 2 per cent is awarded, it is treated as complete compensation for the delay in such cases.

“This ruling aligns with similar precedents, including those from the UP RERA Appellate Tribunal, has significant implications for homebuyers: it limits their remedies when they do not seek a refund, restricts the possibility of pursuing additional claims before the AO, and makes their decision to stay or exit at the time of delayed possession,” says Adnan Siddiqui, Partner, King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates and Attorneys.

According to legal experts, the Haryana RERA ruling affirms a definitive position on delay compensation for homebuyers. The ruling unequivocally establishes that allottees electing to remain invested in delayed possession projects, and who have been granted statutory delay interest, are precluded from pursuing additional compensation claims—such as for mental anguish, price escalation, or loss of property appreciation—before the Adjudicating Officer.

“This judgment underscores a critical strategic inflection point for stakeholders: homebuyers must elect either to continue with the project under a singular, robust delay interest framework or to exercise their remedial rights by exiting the project to pursue comprehensive refund and compensation claims where legally justified,” says Suresh Palav, Partner, IndiaLaw LLP.

Furthermore, the decision clarifies and reinforces the jurisdictional demarcation under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. Compensation adjudication pursuant to specific statutory provisions is rightly the domain of the Adjudicating Officer, whereas disputes surrounding conveyance and promoter obligations remain within the exclusive purview of the Regulatory Authority or alternate adjudicatory forums. This delineation inhibits duplicative claims arising from a single cause of action, thereby streamlining dispute resolution and legal clarity.

“Going forward, it is anticipated that promoters will rely assertively on this interpretation to resist multiplicity of compensation claims, thereby compelling homebuyers and their counsel to adopt focused, evidence-based approaches emphasizing documented delay, accurate interest computation, and judicious decisions on project participation,” observes Palav.

This ruling, thus, represents a significant jurisprudential development, providing both clarity and a framework for prudent legal strategy amidst complex possession delays under RERA. “We recommend that homebuyers engage proactively with specialized legal counsel to navigate these evolving dynamics and safeguard their interests effectively in the current regulatory landscape,” he adds.