Rajasthan REAT Refuses To Enhance Compensation For Shop Buyers Over Missing Escalators, Reduced Visibility

The Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has refused to enhance compensation to ₹10 lakh for two commercial shop buyers who alleged that missing escalators, construction deviations and reduced shop visibility had affected the commercial viability of their properties in the Capital Galleria project at Alwar.

Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhisthir Sharma held that compensation must reflect the actual loss suffered, any unfair advantage gained by the developer and the repetitive nature of the default.

“Section 72 requires regard to the unfair advantage gained, the loss actually caused, and the repetitive nature of the default. Compensation must rest on proof, not assertion,” it observed 

The dispute concerned four commercial shops purchased by Sunder Shyam Arora and his son Chirag Arora in the Capital Galleria project at Manu Marg, Alwar, for a total consideration of ₹46,76,320 under agreements executed in April 2017.

The entire consideration was paid by June 2017, and the shops were intended for a cafeteria business.

The project was registered under RERA on August 22, 2017, with a stated completion date of February 25, 2021.

Although possession was handed over on August 25, 2018, the project remained in lapsed status because the completion certificate dated February 26, 2020, issued by an empanelled architect had not been approved by the RERA Authority.

The buyers complained that missing escalators, an unauthorised staircase and wall obstructing their shops, and a structural pillar reducing usable space had affected the commercial viability of their properties.

On April 9, 2025, the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) offered the buyers a choice between compensation and a refund with interest. They elected to retain their shops.

Subsequently, on June 10, 2025, the RERA Adjudicating Officer directed developer R-Tech Infra Capital Galleria LLP to pay each buyer ₹1,000 per month per shop from August 25, 2018, until approval of the completion certificate, along with ₹30,000 towards mental agony and ₹20,000 as costs.

The amounts were payable within 45 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would apply.

Dissatisfied with the compensation, the buyers approached the Tribunal under Section 44 of the RERA Act, seeking enhancement to ₹10 lakh, along with relief for reduced usable space.

They argued that missing escalators, structural deviations, loss of commercial visibility, reduced usable area and additional loan-interest expenses justified higher compensation.

R-Tech Infra maintained that the project had been completed, possession was delivered in 2018 and no deviations existed from the approved plans. It also alleged default in payment of maintenance charges.

Examining the compensation claim, the Tribunal observed that the buyers had already been awarded monthly compensation for the continuing loss of use and visibility caused by the missing escalators and obstructing staircase.

It held that awarding an additional lump sum for loss of livelihood on the same grounds would amount to compensating the same injury twice.

“The AO's periodic award already compensates the continuing loss of use and visibility due to missing escalators and the obstructing staircase, and it runs until the completion certificate is approved. It is therefore tied to the duration of the default. A further lump sum for "loss of livelihood" on the same facts would compensate the same injury twice,” the Tribunal observed

The Tribunal further noted that the buyers had voluntarily chosen to retain their shops instead of seeking refunds and therefore could not attribute the entire commercial risk to the developer.

Finding the existing compensation reasonable under Section 72 of the RERA Act, the Tribunal dismissed Appeal Nos. 141/2025 and 142/2025, affirming the Adjudicating Officer's order dated June 10, 2025.

It left other grievances, including conveyance deeds, maintenance charges, area billing, electricity connections and delayed-possession interest, open for consideration by the competent RERA.

For Petitioner (Chirag Arora and Sunder Shyam Arora): Advocate Jay Vardhan Joshi.

For Respondent (R-Tech Infra Capital Galleria LLP & Ors.): Advocate Piyush Ganguly.