Haryana RERA Rejects Additional Compensation Claim Over Possession Delay After Granting Delay Interest

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Gurugram, has dismissed a complaint seeking additional compensation for delay in handing over possession of a commercial unit, holding that the allottee had already been granted relief for the delay through an earlier order.

Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar observed:

“When complainant has already been allowed delayed possession compensation by the Authority for delay in handing over possession of allotted unit, there is no reason to allow separate compensation for same cause of action i.e. delay in delivering of possession."

The case concerns Shop No. F-005 in the Ansal Hub-83 Boulevard project at Sector-83, Gurugram. The unit was booked for ₹32.43 lakh. An MOU was executed on April 12, 2013, followed by a Builder Buyer Agreement on December 31, 2014.

Under the agreement, possession of the shop was to be offered within 36 months, with a further grace period of six months. The committed date for handing over the unit was therefore December 31, 2018.

According to the complainant, that deadline came and went without possession being offered. The MOU was subsequently terminated in November 2020. Years later, on May 12, 2025, the developer wrote to the allottee offering fit-out possession of the shop. The offer was not accepted.

This was not the first round of litigation between the parties. The complainant had earlier approached HRERA seeking delayed possession compensation. In May 2025, the Authority ruled in his favour and directed the respondents to pay interest for the period of delay.

The present complaint sought additional monetary relief beyond what had already been granted. The allottee claimed ₹50 lakh towards loss of business income or rent. He also sought ₹10 lakh for mental harassment, ₹2 lakh towards litigation expenses and a further ₹10 lakh for the delay in handing over possession.

While considering the claim, the Authority examined Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It noted that where an allottee chooses to withdraw from a project because possession has been delayed, the law provides for refund, interest and compensation. The position is different when the allottee continues with the project. In such cases, the entitlement is to interest for the delayed period until possession is handed over.

The Authority noted that the complainant had never sought to withdraw from the project. It also recorded that compensation for the delay had already been granted through the earlier order awarding delayed possession interest.

In these circumstances, the Adjudicating Officer held that a fresh award of compensation could not be granted for the very same delay. Finding no basis to grant separate relief on the same cause of action, the Authority dismissed the complaint.

For Complainant: S.K. Vashisht

For Respondents: Karan Attri, Mr. Shankar Wig and Ms. Deepika Khatana