Delay Compensation After Possession: What It Means for Buyers and Investors in Haryana and Chandigarh Tricity

What happened?

The Times of India reported that the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a ruling by Justice Jagmohan Bansal, held that accepting a flat and signing the conveyance deed does not end a buyer's statutory claim for delay compensation under Section 18(1) of the RERA Act. According to the report, the court found that this liability on the promoter cannot be cut down by contract terms, and that, unlike Section 19(8), nothing in Section 18(1) allows it to be waived or reduced by agreement.

The report said the court also set a practical limit. RERA names no deadline for such complaints, but the bench said buyers cannot wait indefinitely. Where possession and conveyance are complete, three years from handover would ordinarily be reasonable. Days falling between 15 March 2020 and 28 February 2022 are to be left out of the count, following Supreme Court directions tied to Covid.

The case came from 47 appeals by Emaar India against buyers in Gurgaon Greens, Sector 102. As The Times of India described it, one buyer's agreement from April 2013 promised possession by 16 November 2016, but the occupation certificate came in May 2019, possession in December 2019 and the conveyance deed in February 2020. The buyer went to HRera in September 2022 and was given 11% interest. The court upheld the buyers' right to interest but sent the matters back to the authority to check, one by one, whether each complaint met the reasonable-time test. Hearings were listed for 16 October, with a request to finish within four months.

Which sectors are affected?

• Homebuyers in Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh who have taken possession
• Gurgaon Greens, Sector 102, Gurgaon
• Builders and promoters with delayed projects
• HRera complaint proceedings

Potential impact

The ruling is likely to bring more claims from owners who assumed a signed conveyance deed closed the matter. Developers with a history of late handovers may face more interest demands and may become stricter about settlement paperwork. Whether any of this changes prices is unclear; the order concerns liability for past delay, not the value of homes.

The outcome for any one buyer is not guaranteed. The authority must still decide each complaint on whether it was filed in time, and the court left room for cases where a buyer knowingly accepted a smaller sum in settlement. Also, this is a decision of one bench, and the report does not say whether Emaar will challenge it further.