Haryana RERA Orders Vatika Ltd to Pay ₹38 lakh Compensation Over Refund For Delayed Gurugram Project

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has directed developer Vatika Limited to pay Rs 38 lakh as compensation to a homebuyer for loss of property appreciation caused by prolonged delay in completing a housing project in Gurugram.

Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar said the developer gained unfairly by holding the buyer's money without building the project. Referring to the rise in developmental activities in that area, he observed that “money paid by the complainant to the respondent would have at least doubled till now, if invested with some other similar project.”

He added that Vatika Limited “has certainly obtained unfair advantage by non-performance of its obligation for a considerable period and has caused wrongful loss to the complainant.”

The case was filed by Bhawna Narang, who had booked a flat in Vatika's Turning Point project in Sector 89, Gurugram. She paid Rs 37.75 lakh for a flat priced at Rs 84.20 lakh, with possession promised by May 5, 2022.

That deadline passed without progress. An inquiry ordered by the Authority later found that there was no construction of the project except some excavation work and pucca labour quarters at the site. In May 2024, Haryana RERA had already ordered Vatika to refund the entire amount paid by Narang with 10.85% interest.

In the present proceedings, Narang sought further compensation for mental harassment, litigation costs, and loss of prospective appreciation, pointing to the sharp rise in property prices in Gurugram during the period of delay.

The developer opposed the claim, arguing that the interest awarded in the refund case was sufficient compensation. It also argued that further compensation would be unjust.

The Authority rejected that defence. It noted that Vatika had received a substantial part of the sale consideration but failed to use it for construction.

Taking note of development activity and rising prices in the area, the Adjudicating Officer was of the opinion that the buyer had suffered a clear financial loss.

The Authority awarded Rs 38 lakh as compensation for loss of prospective appreciation, Rs 1 lakh for mental harassment, and Rs 50,000 as litigation costs. The amounts are to be paid with 10.85% interest from the date of the order until realisation.

For Complainant: Advocate Kartikeya Rastogi (Complainant);

For Respondents: Advocate Shivaditya Mukherjee (Respondent No. 1); Pushkar Rai Garg (Respondent No. 2)