The Adjudicating Officer of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Gurugram, has dismissed a complaint seeking approximately ₹73.9 lakh in additional compensation from Emaar India Limited for delayed possession of a residential plot in Emerald Floors Premier, Emerald Estate, Sector 65, Gurugram.
In Suresh Rawat and another v. Emaar India Limited (Complaint No. 775 of 2026), Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar held that allottees who continue with a real estate project and accept possession are entitled to interest for the period of delay. However, after delayed-possession interest has already been awarded for the same cause of action, they cannot claim separate compensation for that very delay.
The ruling reinforces the distinction between delayed-possession interest and additional compensation, particularly where the buyers have not withdrawn from the project and have accepted possession.
Buyers Sought ₹73.9 Lakh Additional Compensation
The complainants had booked a 1,650 sq. yd. residential plot in Emerald Floors Premier, a project developed by Emaar India Limited at Emerald Estate, Sector 65, Gurugram, in September 2009.
The builder-buyer agreement was executed on January 14, 2010, for a total consideration of ₹87.61 lakh. The buyers stated that they had paid ₹88.71 lakh to the developer.
Under the agreement, possession was due by January 14, 2013. However, Emaar India offered possession only on January 17, 2020. The buyers eventually took possession on March 9, 2020.
Aggrieved by the delay, the buyers had earlier approached the authority and secured an award of delayed-possession interest.
Earlier Award of 9.40% Interest
In the earlier proceedings, the authority had granted the buyers interest at the rate of 9.40% per annum for the period from January 14, 2013, to March 17, 2020.
Emaar India submitted that it had already paid ₹53.32 lakh to the buyers in September 2025 towards the earlier award.
Despite receiving the delayed-possession interest, the buyers subsequently approached the Adjudicating Officer seeking additional compensation under the RERA Act.
Their claim included:
- ₹15 lakh towards mental agony and physical suffering.
- ₹3 lakh towards legal expenses.
- ₹55.90 lakh towards loss of rental income.
The total additional compensation claimed was approximately ₹73.9 lakh.
Buyers Relied on Section 72 of the RERA Act
The buyers’ counsel argued that the Adjudicating Officer had the power to award compensation under Section 72 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Section 72 provides for the factors to be considered by the Adjudicating Officer while determining compensation under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the Act.
The buyers therefore sought separate compensation for the mental agony, physical suffering, legal expenses and alleged loss of rental income arising from the delay in handing over possession.
Emaar India Opposed the Additional Compensation Claim
Emaar India opposed the complaint, arguing that the buyers had already received delayed-possession interest and had accepted possession of the plot.
The developer submitted that the payment of ₹53.32 lakh in September 2025 had satisfied the earlier award of interest. Therefore, the buyers could not seek another round of compensation for the same delay.
The company also relied on the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal’s decision in Tata Housing Development Company Limited v. Nitin Singhal and Surendra Kumar Singhal, which had adopted a similar approach concerning additional compensation claims following delayed possession.
HRERA Adjudicating Officer Holds That Separate Compensation Cannot Be Claimed for the Same Delay
After considering the submissions, Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar dismissed the complaint.
The Adjudicating Officer observed that an allottee who chooses to remain in the project rather than withdraw is entitled to interest for every month of delay until possession is handed over, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the RERA Act.
However, where delayed-possession interest has already been awarded for the same period and cause of action, there is no basis for granting separate compensation again for that very delay.
The ruling applied this principle to the facts of the case, noting that the complainants had already secured delayed-possession interest in the earlier proceedings and had accepted possession of the plot.
Accordingly, the claim for further compensation was dismissed.
Legal Significance: Delayed-Possession Interest and Additional Compensation
The decision highlights an important issue for homebuyers seeking relief for delayed possession under RERA.
Section 18 of the RERA Act provides remedies to an allottee where the promoter fails to complete or give possession in accordance with the agreement. An allottee who chooses to remain in the project is entitled to interest for every month of delay until handing over of possession, at the prescribed rate.
On the other hand, Section 72 lays down the factors that an Adjudicating Officer must consider while determining compensation under the specified provisions of the Act.
The present ruling addresses the buyers’ attempt to obtain additional compensation after delayed-possession interest had already been awarded in their favour. It indicates that compensation cannot automatically be claimed a second time for the same delay merely by describing the losses under separate heads.
The decision also underscores the importance of examining the relief already granted in earlier proceedings before initiating a further compensation claim.
The ruling was delivered in the specific circumstances of this case. It should not be read as a blanket prohibition on every claim for compensation under Section 72 where delayed-possession interest has been awarded. The availability of additional relief will depend on the statutory basis, facts and nature of the claim.
