Last Updated on February 26, 2025 by Satish Mishra
Post covers recent ruling of RERA Panchkula’s Adjudicating Officer (AO) wherein the compensation has been denied to Subsequent Allottee but though the refund and interest already stood granted to him by RERA Authority when the complaint was filed for compensation separately. It simply says NO RERA COMPENSATION FOR SUBSEQUENT ALLOTTEE- AO PANCHKULA.
A “subsequent allottee,” meaning someone who purchased a property after the original allottee, may be entitled to compensation depending on the specific circumstances, usually including factors like the reason for the original allotment being revoked, the terms of the sale agreement, and the applicable laws in the jurisdiction, but generally, they may receive less compensation compared to the initial allottee if there are issues with the property title or development delays.
Also Read-Caveat Before RERA Appellate Tribunal Haryana
Factors affecting compensation:
Reason for transfer: If the original allottee forfeited their rights due to non-payment or violation of terms, the subsequent allottee may have a weaker claim to compensation.
Disclosure of issues: If the seller (original allottee) did not disclose any known issues with the property, the subsequent allottee may have grounds for seeking compensation.
Market value: Compensation is usually calculated based on the current market value of the property at the time of the issue.
Also Read- ARREST SHOWCAUSE NOTICE PENALTY RERA EXECUTION
Potential scenarios where a subsequent allottee might claim compensation:
Development delays:If the project is significantly delayed due to builder negligence, the subsequent allottee may be entitled to compensation for the delay, depending on the terms of the agreement.
Defects in construction:If the property has major construction defects not disclosed by the original allottee, the subsequent allottee may seek compensation for repairs or replacement costs.
Title issues:If the title of the property is disputed or has legal encumbrances not revealed by the original allottee, the subsequent allottee may seek compensation for the loss incurred.
The As-it-is excerpt from the ruling is quoted right below for your reference.
To answer the question, this Forum hold that despite being an allottee” within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the RERA Act, 2016. the complainant may be entitled to get the relief of refund and interest thereon from Hon’ble Authority under Section 31 of the Act, 2016, which he has got but not for compensation because it is the original allottee who actually suffered mental and physical agony due to default of builder but not the subsequent allottee i.e. complainant, who knowing fully well of the consequences of default on the part of the builder in delaying completion of project, Meaning thereby, the complainant accepted to undergo sufferings of kind, if any, due to ongoing default on the part of builder, thus he can’t expect to be compensated for such delay. It is not out of place to mention here that had it been a case of request for refund with interest due to delay in delivery of possession or delayed possession charges, the Hon’ble Authority dealing with, was bound to give benefit thereof in view of recent law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vs Charanjeet Singh, Civil Appeal no.7042 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2021 and also relied for the complainant in this case. Admittedly, such relief has already been provided. But, benefit of law laid down in M/s Laureate’s case (supra), having due regards to the same, can’t be given in case of request for compensation, raised under RERA Act, 2016 and not under Consumer Protection Act, by a subsequent allottee, as the said issue was not discussed.
Also Read-RERA Property Advisor Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Zirakpur
In this quoted case which exclusively pertains to an issue arisen under Consumer Protection Act, and not under RERA Act, 2016. In fact if in such like cases, compensation is granted, it would amount to rewarding a person for intentionally wrong done. Otherwise also, till Builder Buyer Agreement was executed with Second allotted to complainant, there was no occasion for present complainant to have suffered any agony w.e.f, the your 2009 onwards and thereafter also no chance to claim harassment on his part as know the consequences of joining a project which was already under turmoil and ineffective. Rather, the Principle “Buyer be Aware” would also act against the subsequent allottee in this case. It is also not out of place to mention here that right to get refund with interest and the right to get compensation under RERA Act, 2016, are two different remedies available with an allottee unlike under Consumer Protection Act and both these remedies need specific factors to be considered by the concerned Forum to grant the relief. In other words, these remedies being independent to each other, would not give right to an allottee to claim both as of right e.g. an original allottee can be held entitled to both reliefs but not a subsequent transferee who may get refund but not compensation despite falling within the meaning of definition of “allottee” given under Section 2(d) of the Act, 2016, as had not been victim of sufferings which original allottee initially faced believing builder’s false promises. It could be justified to observe here that feelings of sufferings or agony or harassment or pains etc. are subjective, means restricted to individual only, which cannot be transferred from original allottee to subsequent to enable later to claim compensation. In fact, such feeling of sufferings cannot be equated with transfer of money from one to another, which is the reason subsequent allottee may be held entitled to get refund with interest but certainly not compensation within the meaning of section 72 of the Act, 2016.
Also Read-RERA Punjab Recovery as Arrears of Land Revenue
Thus, in totality it is concluded that in this case, the subsequent allottee may be entitled for the relief of refund with interest as has already been granted by Hon’ble Authority but he certainly is not entitled to get compensation for the wrong knowingly done. Otherwise also, no question arises to compensate him since the time of inception of project in the year 2012. Ld. counsel for the complainant has not been able to show any law laid down by any Hon’ble Judicial Forum, wherein. in the given circumstances of the present case filed under Section 71 of the Act, 2016, read with Rule 29 of HRERA Rules, 2017, compensation has been granted to a subsequent allottee.
In view of the foregoing discussions, the present complaint is dismissed devoid of merits.
Appeal no. 268 of 2020 of BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL decided on 06.01.2023 contradicts this view. So the judgment needs to be tested there as well. Hope, the home buyer gets relief in this case.
Conclusion- Life is complex so as law. So don’t be your own lawyer and take the advice of expert wherever required.
Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA), a subsequent allottee (a buyer who purchases a unit from the original allottee) is generally entitled to the same compensation as the original allottee if the builder delays possession or fails to fulfill project obligations, including interest on the amount paid, as per Section 18 of RERA; however, the specific terms of the sale agreement between the original and subsequent allottee may influence the exact compensation received.
Potential limitations:
Contractual terms: The terms of the sale agreement between the original and subsequent allottee may specify different compensation arrangements, potentially limiting the subsequent allottee’s claim.
Knowledge of issues: If the subsequent allottee was aware of existing issues with the project before purchasing, their claim for compensation might be impacted.
For case related advice connect with any RERA Expert lawyers at Panchkula Haryana or RERA Punjab depending upon your convenience.
More info on 99888-17966.
