MahaREAT Ruling: Homebuyers Must Choose Between RERA and Consumer Court Claims

August 10, 2024

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) bench, consisting of Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has ruled that homebuyers may approach the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) even if they have already lodged a complaint with the Consumer Court. However, if both complaints seek the same relief, the Doctrine of Election will apply, requiring homebuyers to withdraw their complaint from the Consumer Court to maintain the validity of their complaint before the Authority.

The Doctrine of Election states that when an aggrieved party has two avenues to obtain the same relief, they must choose one and cannot pursue both simultaneously.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The homebuyers (Appellants) booked flats in the builder’s (Respondent) projects, “Indiabulls Green-1” and “Indiabulls Greens-3,” located in Panvel, Raigad. The total agreed consideration for these flats was ₹44,91,900 and ₹73,51,400, respectively. The homebuyers made payments of ₹9,26,140 and ₹15,30,869, respectively, towards the purchase of their respective flats.

Upset by the delay in the project’s construction and the execution of sale agreements, the homebuyers filed separate complaints with MahaRERA (the Authority), seeking refunds with interest.

However, on July 30, 2021, the Authority observed that the homebuyers had previously filed complaints with the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, seeking similar relief. As a result, the Authority dismissed the complaints, stating that the homebuyers were engaging in forum shopping.

As a result, dissatisfied with the dismissal of their complaints by the Authority, the homebuyers filed an appeal before the Tribunal. They sought to overturn the Authority’s order dated July 30, 2021, and requested a refund of the amounts paid, along with interest.

OBDSERVATION AND DIRECTION BY TRIBUNAL

The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of M/s. Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni and Anr., where it was established that homebuyers are allowed to initiate proceedings under RERA by filing complaints with the Authority, even if they have previously filed consumer complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Tribunal referred to Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), which clarifies that the remedies provided under this section are in addition to any other available remedies. This allows for concurrent claims, particularly when the reliefs sought differ, such as pursuing regulatory compliance under RERA while also seeking compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.

The Tribunal also noted that Section 79 of RERA, 2016, restricts civil courts but does not extend this restriction to consumer forums, which are specialized tribunals distinct from civil courts. Therefore, Section 79 of RERA, 2016, does not affect the principle of choosing between remedies under RERA and the Consumer Protection Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that Section 88 of RERA, 2016, provides an exception to the doctrine of election by allowing concurrent claims as long as they address different aspects of the grievances.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the doctrine of election applies to the homebuyers’ appeal. Since the homebuyers opted not to withdraw their complaint from the Consumer Court, their complaint before the Authority was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the homebuyers’ appeal and upheld the MahaRERA order dated July 30, 2021.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in