In the Matter of Estate Officer vs. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab and Anr. Complaint no. Appeal No. 65 of 2019 decided on 01.07.2019 before Punjab Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
In this case, the RERA Appellate Tribunal was called upon to examine the correctness of an order of the Adjudicating Officer, vide which compensation had been awarded under Section 72 of the Act on account of two heads, viz., mental agony and litigation expenses. While passing the Order for compensation, the Adjudicating Officer had opined that since the Act did not define the term compensation, and had thought fit to draw upon the scheme of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for settling the claims for compensation.
The Appellate Tribunal held:
(i) The objects and reasons in the matter of award of compensation under those enactments acts have no connection even remotely with the award of compensation under the RERA and to draw a corollary from the said enactments for considering the award of compensation was wrong and illegal;
(ii) Section 72 of the Act operates a self contained code for consideration of the factors to be taken into account while deciding the quantum of compensation. In support of this proposition, the Tribunal also relied on the previous decision in the same matter, wherein it had been concluded by reference to Section 72(d) that the factors enumerated in the said provision were not exhaustive;
(iii) that in the absence of any pleadings or material placed on record for award of compensation on account of mental agony, compensation sought not to have been awarded. It was found that in order to support the plea of compensation, only a bald statement had been made and no material was placed on record to support the case of loss suffered on account of interest paid for bank loan availed. The Tribunal also relied on Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2003 (2) SCC 111, for the proposition that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all.
The award of compensation on account of litigation expenses was upheld, while that on account of mental agony was set aside.
