Can Homebuyers File Concurrent Complaints Before RERA and Consumer Court Seeking Similar Reliefs? MahaREAT Answers

The Doctrine of Election says that if an aggrieved party has two options to get the same relief, they must choose one option and cannot pursue both.

Background Facts

Homebuyers (Appellant) booked flats in the builder's (Respondent) project "Indiabulls Green-1 and Greens-3" located in Panvel, Raigad. The total consideration for these flats were ₹44,91,900 and ₹73,51,400, respectively. The homebuyers paid ₹9,26,140 and ₹15,30,869, respectively, to the builder to purchase their respective flats.

Aggrieved by the delay in the construction of the project and the execution of agreements for sale, the homebuyers filed separate complaints before MahaRERA (Authority) seeking refund with interest.

On July 30, 2021, the Authority noted that before approaching it, the homebuyers had already filed complaints before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission seeking similar relief. Therefore, Authority dismissed the complaints of the homebuyers, holding that they were engaging in forum shopping.

Therefore, aggrieved by the dismissal of their complaints before the Authority, the homebuyers filed appeal before the Tribunal seeking to quash the Authority's order dated July 30, 2021, and provide a refund of the amount with interest.

Observation and Direction by Tribunal

The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni and Anr., where it was held that Homebuyers are permitted to initiate proceedings under RERA by filing complaints before Authority, even if they have already filed consumer complaints earlier under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Tribunal referred to Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 [RERA], which states that remedies under this section are without prejudice to any other remedy available. This means that concurrent claims are allowed, especially when the reliefs differ, such as seeking regulatory compliance under RERA while also claiming compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.

The Tribunal further noted that Section 79 of the RERA, 2016, bars civil courts but does not bar consumer forums, which are specialized tribunals distinct from civil courts. Therefore, Section 79 of the RERA, 2016 does not impact the doctrine of election regarding remedies under RERA and the Consumer Protection Act.

Additionally, the Tribunal held that Section 88 of RERA, 2016, creates an exception to the doctrine of election by permitting concurrent claims as long as they address different aspects of grievances.

As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the doctrine of election applies to the homebuyers' appeal. Since the homebuyers chose not to withdraw their complaint from the Consumer Court, their complaint before the Authority is unsustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the homebuyers' appeal and upheld the MahaRERA order dated July 30, 2021.

Case – Ajay Versus M/s. Lucina Land Development Limited A/w another

Citation - AT006000000053394 & AT006000000053395