Skip to main content

Consumer Protection and RERA Acts are concurrent remedies operating independently and without primacy

Citation         : Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Sushma Ashok Shiroor, Civil Appeal No. 6044 Of 2019 With Civil Appeal No. 7149 Of 2019

Date of Judgment/Order         : April 07, 2022

Court/Tribunal : Supreme Court Of India

Corum : Uday Umesh Lalit; J, S. Ravindra Bhat; J, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; J.

Background

Appeal was filed Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 19861, arise out of the judgment dated 19.06.2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Commission directed the Appellant-Developer to refund an amount of Rs. 2,06,41,379 with interest @ 9% p.a. to the Respondent-Consumer for its failure to deliver possession of the apartment within the time stipulated as per the Apartment Buyers Agreement.

One of the questions raised by the Appellant was whether the Commission has the power under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct refund of the amount deposited by the Consumer with interest?
Consumer, having elected to proceed under the Act, the provisions of the RERA Act will have no application.

Judgment

The Supreme Court referring to judgments in Imperia Structures Ltd v. Anil Patni (2020) 10 SCC 783,  IREO Grace Realtech (P) Ltd. V. Abhishek Khanna (2021) 3 SCC 241] and Pioneer Urban Land Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 8 SCC 416, made the following observations :-

  1. It is crystal clear that the Consumer Protection Act and the RERA Act neither exclude nor contradict each other. In fact, this Court has held that they are concurrent remedies operating independently and without primacy. 
  2. The power to direct refund of the amount and to compensate a consumer for the deficiency in not delivering the apartment as per the terms of Agreement is within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts.
  3. A consumer invoking the jurisdiction of the Commission can seek such reliefs as he/she considers appropriate. A consumer can pray for refund of the money with interest and compensation. The consumer could also ask for possession of the apartment with compensation. The consumer can also make a prayer for both in the alternative. If a consumer prays for refund of the amount, without an alternative prayer, the Commission will recognize such a right and grant it, of course subject to the merits of the case. If a consumer seeks alternative reliefs, the Commission will consider the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case and will pass appropriate orders as justice demands.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more