Mohali, June 29 -- A homebuyer who waited more than three years for possession of his apartment failed to secure compensation from the Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), which held that he had continued with the project after taking possession of the unit and, therefore, could not seek compensation under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. RERA dismissed the complaint filed by Baljit Singh Mahal against Sushma Buildtech Ltd, ruling that his claim for compensation, interest and litigation expenses was not maintainable under Section 18 of the Act. According to the complaint, Mahal booked apartment No. C-1201 in the Sushma Chandigarh Grande residential project at Zirakpur in October 2014. The apartment buyer's agreement was executed on November 25, 2014, and the developer was required to hand over possession within 42 months. He said the company offered possession in April 2021 and handed over the apartment in August 2021, more than three years after the promised date. Mahal claimed that the delay caused him financial loss and mental harassment and sought compensation, interest and litigation expenses. Sushma Buildtech contested the complaint, stating that the buyer had accepted possession of the apartment, executed the conveyance deed and continued with the project. The company further submitted that delays were covered by force majeure conditions, including the Covid-19 pandemic, and maintained that it had fulfilled its contractual obligations. After examining the record, RERA observed that Section 18 of the Act draws a distinction between allottees who withdraw from a project and those who continue with it. The authority noted that an allottee who remains in the project is entitled only to interest for the period of delayed possession and not compensation. The order also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh, which clarified that claims relating to delayed-possession interest and compensation are governed by separate remedies under the Act. Holding that Mahal had accepted possession of the apartment and had not withdrawn from the project, RERA ruled that his complaint seeking compensation, interest and litigation expenses was not maintainable. The authority dismissed the complaint while granting liberty to the parties to avail an appropriate remedy before the competent authority in accordance with law....