Escalators on the Plan, Not in the Mall: What Shop Buyers Won, and What They Did Not

In April 2017, a father and son signed agreements for four shops on the third floor of Capital Galleria, a commercial project on Manu Marg in Alwar, Rajasthan. They paid the full Rs 46,76,320 by June 2017, partly with a commercial loan, planning to run a cafeteria. The approved layout showed escalators. None was built. A staircase and a wall went up in front of their shops instead, and they said a pillar inside the units cut usable space. They took possession in August 2018. Seven years later, they were still arguing about what that was worth.

On 15 October 2026, the Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Officer's award: Rs 1,000 per month per shop from 25 August 2018 until the project's completion certificate is approved, plus Rs 30,000 for mental agony and Rs 20,000 as costs. It refused to raise the award to the Rs 10 lakh the buyers sought. "Compensation must rest on proof, not assertion," it said. For Bengaluru buyers of shops and offices in mixed-use projects, the case shows both what a missing amenity can earn and how far a compensation claim can go.

The short answer. In Appeal Nos. 141 and 142 of 2025, the Rajasthan REAT affirmed a monthly award for the continuing loss of use and visibility from missing escalators and an obstructing staircase, running until the completion certificate is approved, and held that a further lump sum for loss of livelihood on the same facts "would compensate the same injury twice". It left other grievances, including delay interest, conveyance, maintenance and area billing, to the RERA Authority. The trade-off: the buyers kept their shops and a running monthly award, but having chosen not to take a refund, they could not "attribute the whole risk of the venture to the promoter".

What happened at Capital Galleria?

According to the Rajasthan REAT judgment in Appeal Nos. 141 and 142 of 2025, shops C-3F-01 to C-3F-04 were booked in the project, registered with Rajasthan RERA as RAJ/P/2017/073 on 22 August 2017 with a stated completion date of 25 February 2021. Possession was handed over on 25 August 2018 after an offer dated 3 August 2018. A letter of satisfaction was issued on 13 September 2022 and a sale deed executed on 19 October 2022.

The developer relied on a completion certificate dated 26 February 2020 issued by an empanelled architect. The tribunal recorded that it "has not been approved by the Authority, and the project remains in lapsed status". By an order dated 9 April 2025, the RERA Authority offered the buyers a choice between compensation and a refund with interest. They chose to stay in the project.

The buyers, whose complaints were numbered RAJ-RERA-C-2023-6838 and RAJ-RERA-C-2023-6854, raised more than the escalators. They said no registered agreement was executed although more than 10% had been collected, that no conveyance deed had followed, that maintenance was charged at Rs 3 per sq ft on an incomplete project, that billing used super built-up area rather than carpet area, and that there was a false completion entry on the RERA website along with withdrawal from the designated account. The developer answered that the project was complete, possession had been taken in 2018, there was no deviation from the approved site plan, and the complaint was a belated pressure tactic by an allottee who had defaulted on maintenance. The developer filed no appeal or cross-objection against the Adjudicating Officer's findings.

What did the Adjudicating Officer find?

On 10 June 2025, the Adjudicating Officer found that "the approved layout shows escalators, none was provided", and that the architect's own certificate recorded a front-side staircase not in the approval. A staircase and wall had been built in front of the shops, which the developer "did not specifically rebut". The Adjudicating Officer also recorded that "possession without a valid completion certificate is not lawful possession".

At the same time, the Adjudicating Officer found that the developer had built and delivered the project, that diversion of funds was not shown, and that no compensation for financial loss on the amount invested was due. Maintenance, formation of a residents' body and carpet versus super built-up area were left to the Authority. The award was Rs 1,000 per month per shop from 25 August 2018 until approval of the completion certificate, Rs 30,000 for mental agony and Rs 20,000 as costs, payable within 45 days, with 6% interest after that.

Why did the tribunal refuse to increase the award?

The buyers sought Rs 10,00,000 for loss of livelihood and mental agony, plus about Rs 78,500 in extra loan interest, and relief for a pillar of about 12 sq ft that they said reduced usable area by about 150 sq ft. The tribunal said Section 72 requires regard to "the unfair advantage gained, the loss actually caused, and the repetitive nature of the default", and that "compensation must rest on proof, not assertion".

It gave three reasons. The buyers had held the shops since August 2018 and "chose, before the Authority, to continue in the project and forgo refund"; having done so, they "cannot attribute the whole risk of the venture to the promoter". The Adjudicating Officer had found funds were not diverted, and allegations of fraud were "not backed by any finding of the Authority on record". And the monthly award "already compensates the continuing loss of use and visibility due to missing escalators and the obstructing staircase", tied to the duration of the default.

Two smaller points also failed. The tribunal recorded that the complaint about the missing electricity connection was not shown to have been raised before the Adjudicating Officer and was unsupported by any document, and it left the buyers free to pursue it before the Authority. On maintenance, it left the rights and liabilities of both sides open for the Authority, rather than deciding the dispute over the Rs 3 per sq ft charge itself.

Which forum decides which grievance?

The tribunal drew a clear line. Under Section 71, the Adjudicating Officer's role "is limited to compensation for contraventions of Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19, adjudged with regard to the factors in Section 72". Matters within the Authority's powers, which it listed as "registration, compliance with promoter obligations, interest, maintenance, conveyance", are outside it. It cited the Supreme Court's Newtech Promoters judgment on this division.

So the buyers' complaints about a registered agreement under Section 13, the conveyance deed under Section 17, maintenance and arrears, formation of an association, area billing, and allegations about the RERA website and designated account were left "open to be agitated before the competent Authority". Delay interest under the proviso to Section 18(1) was likewise left for the Authority. For a buyer, that means a single complaint to the wrong forum can leave important issues undecided.

What should a Bengaluru buyer of a shop or office check?

Our explainer on how RERA covers shops and offices in mixed-use projects sets out the basics. Our report on the same tribunal's ruling on a Bengaluru buyer's rent claim shows its consistent demand for proof. Before buying commercial space, check the following.

1. Get a copy of the approved layout and note escalators, lifts, stairs and access routes near your unit.
2. Check the sanctioned plan for any staircase, wall or pillar in front of or inside your unit.
3. Measure the carpet area at handover and compare it with the agreement.
4. Ask whether the completion certificate has been approved by the competent authority, not just issued by an architect.
5. Keep business plans, loan papers and records of actual losses if visibility or access is affected.
6. Decide early whether you want a refund or to stay, since the choice shaped compensation in this case.
7. File compensation claims before the Adjudicating Officer and regulatory grievances before the Authority.

Does this Rajasthan ruling apply in Bengaluru?

It is a Rajasthan appellate judgment on an Alwar project, so Bengaluru buyers should treat it as guidance rather than a Karnataka ruling. But the division between Sections 71 and 72 and the Authority's powers comes from the central RERA Act and the Supreme Court's Newtech judgment, which apply in Karnataka. The judgment was pronounced on 15 October 2026 by Chairperson Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Judicial Member Yudhishthir Sharma, and both appeals were dismissed without costs. For advice on a commercial purchase, consult a lawyer who handles RERA matters.

Frequently asked questions

Can I get compensation if promised escalators are not built near my shop?

In the Capital Galleria case, yes. The Adjudicating Officer found the approved layout showed escalators that were never provided, and awarded Rs 1,000 per month per shop from 25 August 2018 until the completion certificate is approved. The Rajasthan REAT upheld this on 15 October 2026.

Why did the tribunal refuse Rs 10 lakh for loss of livelihood?

The tribunal said the monthly award already compensated the continuing loss of use and visibility, so a lump sum on the same facts would compensate the same injury twice. It also noted the buyers chose to stay rather than take a refund, and that compensation must rest on proof.

Which RERA forum decides delay interest and conveyance disputes?

The tribunal said the Adjudicating Officer's role under Section 71 is limited to compensation for contraventions of Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19. Delay interest, conveyance, maintenance and similar issues are for the RERA Authority, and were left open for the buyers to pursue there.

Is an architect's completion certificate enough?

In this case, the developer relied on a completion certificate dated 26 February 2020 issued by an empanelled architect, but it had not been approved by the Authority and the project remained in lapsed status. The monthly award runs until that certificate is approved by the Authority.

Last updated 2026-11-15. PropNewz Team.