The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal held that consumer law principles on a promoter's obligations can apply to RERA proceedings, and ordered a developer to pay interest for delayed possession plus a monthly sum for an incomplete clubhouse. It rejected the developer's argument that a paid third-party facility could substitute for an amenity promised in the sale agreement.
What this changes for a title check
For a lender or lawyer reviewing a RERA-registered project's compliance history, this confirms that amenity shortfalls are compensable even after the sale deed is executed and even where the promoter argues a substitute facility exists. The tribunal read the sale agreement and construction agreement together, so a title or project-compliance review now has to check both documents for amenity commitments, not just the flat specification. The case also confirms allottees keep the option of consumer forum remedies alongside RERA, so a promoter's RERA compliance certificate does not close out consumer-law exposure on the same project.