They won DPC with interest. Then HARERA said no to a second payout.

Two Brothers, One Flat, Four Years Late: Why HARERA Said No to a Second Payout

Raghav and Abhinav Manocha bought a flat in Gurugram’s Emerald Estate. The developer, Emaar MGF Land Limited, was supposed to hand over possession by February 2014. It offered the keys in April 2018 — a delay of over four years. The brothers had taken a home loan. They had paid rent all that time. In 2018, they approached the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA) and won an order for delayed possession charges (DPC) with interest at 10.75% per annum. That should have been the end of it.

But in January 2024, the Manochas filed a fresh complaint before the Adjudicating Officer under Sections 31 and 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. They wanted more: approximately Rs. 33.8 lakhs for mental harassment, deficiency in service, loss of opportunity, and litigation costs. The Adjudicating Officer, Rajender Kumar, dismissed the complaint on two grounds. First, it was filed nearly six years after possession was offered — barred by limitation. Second, on merits, since DPC with interest had already been awarded under Section 18(1) of RERA, separate compensation was not warranted. The interest itself, the officer held, is the compensation.

What the Buyer’s Agreement Actually Said

The Manochas purchased the unit — EEA-B-F01-06 in the ‘Emerald Estate’ project at Sector 65, Gurugram — from a subsequent allottee in October 2012. Clause 11(a) of the Buyer’s Agreement set the due date for possession at 36 months from the commencement of construction. Construction began on August 26, 2010. That meant possession was due by February 26, 2014.

Emaar MGF offered possession on April 23, 2018. The delay was 50 months — over four years. The brothers had taken a home loan and paid rent during this period. They first moved HARERA in 2018 (Complaint No. 573 of 2018). On December 11, 2018, the Authority directed Emaar MGF to pay interest at 10.75% per annum for every month of delay on the amount paid by the complainants, from the due date of possession till the actual handing over or offer of possession plus two months after the occupancy certificate, whichever was earlier.

That order was complied with. But the Manochas believed they were entitled to more.

The Second Complaint: What the Brothers Argued

On January 9, 2024, the Manochas filed Complaint No. 13 of 2024 before the Adjudicating Officer. They sought compensation under several heads: mental harassment, deficiency in service, loss of opportunity due to inflation, and litigation costs. The total claim was approximately Rs. 33.8 lakhs.

Their counsel argued that the earlier award of DPC with interest did not exhaust their right to seek compensation. They relied on two precedents: NBCC (India) Ltd v. Shri Ram Trivedi, (2021) 5 SCC 273, and Neelam Tandon and Another v. Emaar MGF Land Limited, 2023 SCC Online NCDRC 975. Both cases, they submitted, supported the proposition that an allottee could claim compensation in addition to delayed possession charges.

They also contended that the complaint was within limitation. The cause of action, they said, was continuing — the mental harassment and deficiency in service persisted even after possession was offered.

Why the Adjudicating Officer Said No

Rajender Kumar, the Adjudicating Officer, examined two issues: limitation and merits. He found against the complainants on both.

The Limitation Wall

The officer noted that possession was offered on April 23, 2018. The complaint was filed on January 9, 2024 — nearly six years later. Under the Limitation Act, 1963, the period for filing a complaint for compensation is three years from the date the cause of action arises. Here, the cause of action arose when possession was offered. The complainants offered no explanation for the delay.

The officer observed: “Public policy requires that a case/complaint should be filed at the earliest. A Damocles sword cannot be allowed to be hanging upon a party indefinitely.” The complaint was dismissed as barred by limitation.

The Merits: What Section 18(1) Actually Means

Even if the limitation issue were set aside, the officer held that the complaint failed on merits. The key provision was Section 18(1) of RERA. That section gives an allottee two options when a promoter fails to deliver possession on time: (a) withdraw from the project and get a full refund with interest, or (b) continue with the project and claim interest for every month of delay till possession is handed over.

The Manochas had not withdrawn from the project. They had taken possession. Under the proviso to Section 18(1), when an allottee does not withdraw, the only entitlement is interest for the delay. The officer held that the awarding of interest under Section 18(1) is itself compensation. Separate additional compensation — for mental harassment, deficiency in service, or loss of opportunity — cannot be granted when DPC with interest has already been awarded.

The officer distinguished the precedents cited by the complainants. NBCC (India) Ltd v. Shri Ram Trivedi and Neelam Tandon were cases where the facts were different. In the present case, the Authority had already granted DPC with interest. That was the complete remedy under the statute.

THE PLAY: If you are an allottee who has not withdrawn from the project and has already been awarded delayed possession charges with interest under Section 18(1) of RERA, do not file a second complaint seeking additional compensation. The interest is the compensation. The Adjudicating Officer will dismiss it as barred by limitation or on merits — or both.

What This Means for Allottees and Developers

For allottees, the judgment is a clear warning: you get one bite at the apple under Section 18(1). If you choose to stay in the project and take possession, your remedy is interest for the delay. You cannot later come back and claim mental harassment or deficiency in service as separate heads of compensation. The statute has already accounted for your loss through the interest mechanism.

For developers, the judgment provides a strong defence against second-generation claims. Once DPC with interest has been awarded and paid, the matter is closed — unless the allottee can show that the earlier order was not complied with or that the delay caused a specific, quantifiable loss not covered by interest.

The limitation point is equally important. The officer applied the three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963. RERA does not have its own limitation provision for complaints before the Adjudicating Officer. This means that allottees must act quickly. A delay of even a few years — let alone six — will be fatal.

The Bottom Line

If you are an allottee who has taken possession and already received delayed possession charges with interest under Section 18(1) of RERA, do not file a second complaint for additional compensation. The Adjudicating Officer will dismiss it. The interest is the compensation. The statute says so. The clock starts ticking from the date possession is offered. Do not wait six years to ask for more.