Gurgaon: Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRera) has dismissed several complaints filed by homebuyers and residents, holding that the claims were either outside its jurisdiction or that the allottees already received statutory relief earlier.In one case, the Authority rejected a plea by Anju Rani, an Ardee City resident, seeking a refund of Rs 75,000 maintenance security deposit, ruling that the dispute arose from a private resale transaction, not a promoter–allottee relationship under the Rera Act, 2016. Rani argued that the deposit was refundable after maintenance services were handed over to the municipal authority and that all dues were cleared in 2022. However, the respondents contended that the maintenance agency was not a “promoter” under the Act and that the property transaction was between private parties.Agreeing with the respondents, the Authority ruled that the matter was civil in nature and beyond its jurisdiction.In another case, adjudicating officer Rajender Kumar dismissed a plea by Raj Kumar Chugh seeking additional compensation for delayed possession in the Ansal Highland Park project in Sector 103, developed by Identity Build-tech.Chugh sought over Rs 53 lakh in compensation, including damages for mental agony, litigation expenses and alleged rental losses. However, the authority noted that in a previous order dated Sept 24, 2021, the Authority 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 the project is entitled to interest for delay, not separate compensation for the same cause.Similar reasoning was applied in two complaints filed by Delhi resident Sandeep Bansal against developer IREO in relation to projects in Gurgaon.In two separate complaints, the allottee Bansal sought additional compensation for project delays in IREO City in Sector 60 and IREO Victory Valley in Sector 67, including claims for rental loss and harassment. However, the Authority dismissed both pleas, ruling that since the allottee had already been awarded interest for the period of delay (including 10.4% per annum in a 2018 order) and had not withdrawn from the projects, no further compensation could be granted for the same cause of action. Across the cases, HRera reiterated that the framework primarily provides interest for delay when allottees remain invested in a project, while additional compensation generally applies only when buyers withdraw from the project or establish separate legal grounds. All the complaints were dismissed, and the files were ordered to be consigned to the record room.
