Haryana Real Estate Authority Dismisses Multiple Homebuyer Complaints, Citing Jurisdiction and Prior Relief
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRera) has recently dismissed a series of complaints filed by homebuyers and residents, asserting that the claims either fell outside its legal jurisdiction or that the complainants had already received statutory relief in earlier proceedings. This decision underscores the regulatory body's strict interpretation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, emphasizing its role in specific promoter-allottee disputes rather than broader civil matters.
Case Dismissal: Maintenance Deposit Dispute Deemed Private Transaction
In one notable case, the Authority rejected a plea from Anju Rani, a resident of Ardee City in Gurgaon, who sought a refund of a Rs 75,000 maintenance security deposit. Rani argued that the deposit was refundable after maintenance services were transferred to the municipal authority and all dues were cleared in 2022. However, HRera ruled that the dispute arose from a private resale transaction, not a direct promoter-allottee relationship under the Rera Act.
The respondents contended that the maintenance agency did not qualify as a "promoter" under the Act, and the property transaction was between private parties. Agreeing with this view, the Authority declared the matter civil in nature and beyond its jurisdiction, highlighting the limits of its regulatory purview.
Delayed Possession Claims: No Additional Compensation Beyond Interest
In another instance, adjudicating officer Rajender Kumar dismissed a plea by Raj Kumar Chugh, who sought over Rs 53 lakh in additional compensation for delayed possession in the Ansal Highland Park project in Sector 103, developed by Identity Build-tech. Chugh's claims included damages for mental agony, litigation expenses, and alleged rental losses.
However, the authority noted that in a previous order dated September 24, 2021, it had already directed the developer to pay interest at 9.3% per annum for every month of delay from April 2017 until possession. Kumar held that under Section 18 of the Rera Act, an allottee who continues with a project is entitled only to interest for delay, not separate compensation for the same cause, reinforcing the Act's provisions.
Similar Rulings in IREO Project Complaints
Similar reasoning was applied in two complaints filed by Delhi resident Sandeep Bansal against developer IREO concerning projects in Gurgaon. In separate complaints related to IREO City in Sector 60 and IREO Victory Valley in Sector 67, Bansal sought additional compensation for project delays, including claims for rental loss and harassment.
The Authority dismissed both pleas, ruling that since Bansal had already been awarded interest for the delay period—including 10.4% per annum in a 2018 order—and had not withdrawn from the projects, no further compensation could be granted for the same cause of action. This decision aligns with HRera's consistent stance on limiting duplicate claims.
HRera's Framework: Interest vs. Additional Compensation
Across these cases, HRera reiterated its legal framework, which primarily provides interest for delay when allottees remain invested in a project. Additional compensation generally applies only when buyers withdraw from a project or establish separate legal grounds beyond mere delay. All the dismissed complaints were ordered to be consigned to the record room, closing these specific legal avenues for the complainants.
This series of dismissals highlights the importance for homebuyers to understand the jurisdictional boundaries of RERA and the specific remedies available under the Act, particularly in cases involving private transactions or previously adjudicated matters.
