HRERA has ordered Pareena Infrastructure to pay nearly ₹23 lakh to two homebuyers over a prolonged possession delay in its Coban Residences project, covering property appreciation loss, harassment and legal costs.
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed Pareena Infrastructure to pay close to ₹23 lakh to homebuyers Udit Sharma and his father Rakesh Sharma, years after the same buyers first approached the regulator over their delayed flat. The developer now has 30 days to pay, or the amount starts accruing interest at 11% per annum until it's cleared.
The buyers had booked a 1,550 sq. ft. apartment in Pareena Coban Residences back in February 2013, paying ₹78.04 lakh against a promised four-year possession window. Along the way, they said, additional charges got added once the builder-buyer agreement was signed, pushing costs up without ever locking in a firm possession date. By the time they'd paid ₹43.72 lakh, still no date had materialised.
Frustrated, the Sharmas first went to HRERA seeking cancellation and a refund, and in July 2022 the authority ordered Pareena to return their money with interest. That could have been the end of it. Instead, the buyers came back, this time seeking separate compensation for mental agony, financial hardship, the property appreciation they'd missed out on, and legal costs, arguing the delay had cost them the chance to buy something comparable at the original price and had caused rental losses along the way.
Pareena pushed back on two fronts. It said the buyers had defaulted under a revised payment plan, leading to the allotment being cancelled per the agreement, and separately argued that since a refund order already existed, the buyers couldn't come back for more compensation on the same underlying issue.
Adjudicating officer Rajender Kumar rejected both arguments. He held that an earlier refund order doesn't block a buyer from separately claiming compensation under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act for financial and non-financial losses tied to a promoter's failure to deliver on time. That distinction matters well beyond this one case, refund and compensation are treated as separate remedies, not one substituting for the other.
HRERA accepted the buyers' claim over lost property appreciation, calculating compensation proportional to what they'd actually paid in, roughly ₹21 lakh on that basis alone. On top of that came ₹1 lakh for mental harassment and agony, and ₹50,000 for litigation costs.
Worth knowing: Coban Residences, in Sector 99A, has generated more than one compensation dispute at HRERA. A separate case, Pareena Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Mabood Aryaman, went to appeal before the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and was decided in January 2026, involving a similar pattern, a buyer awarded compensation for financial loss and mental harassment after possession delays in the same project. Two independent buyers pursuing near-identical claims against the same development is the kind of pattern worth noticing, not just a one-off dispute.
Cases like this are a useful reminder that a developer's brand recognition doesn't guarantee delivery discipline, and Hommea would flag Pareena's repeated appearances before HRERA on this same project as exactly the kind of thing worth checking before booking anything, developer litigation history is public record on the RERA portal, and it's worth reviewing alongside whatever's currently on offer across Gurugram's project pipeline, not just the floor plan and price quoted at the sales desk.
