Concurrent Remedies under Consumer Protection Act and RERA
In a recent case- “M/s M3M India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Dr. Dinesh Sharma & Anr”, the High Court of Delhi passed an order that homebuyers can approach both Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA) and Real Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 2016 ,commonly known as, RERA against errant builders, as the remedies under both are concurrent.
Background of the case-
The real estate firms, aggrieved by the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), filed the case in the High Court of Delhi. This petition was filed by 62 builders and developers who had sought relief, and argued that if a homebuyer once moved RERA, the earlier case pending in the Consumer Commission could not be heard and needed to be withdrawn. The real estate firms further argued that a homebuyer could only seek relief either from RERA or from a Consumer Commission. They submitted that since RERA itself, under Section 79, gives an option to allottee to withdraw pending proceedings under CPA, the same needed to be followed in cases filed elsewhere.
Section 79 of RERA provides that no civil court shall have jurisdiction over matters empowered to be decided by RERA and no court shall grant injunction in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.
Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed this petition in the Delhi High Court and upheld the decision of NCDRC that the remedies provided under CPA and RERA are concurrent and the jurisdiction of the forums/commissions under CPA was not ousted by RERA.
The homebuyers submitted that the issues raised in the present case had already been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union Of India & Ors, wherein the court held that-
“Remedies given to allottees of flat/apartments are concurrent, and such allottees are in a position to avail remedies under CPA, RERA, as well as trigger the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).”
Opposing this, the real estate firms argued that the issue involved in the abovementioned case was only on the remedies available to homebuyers under IBC and RERA. They argued further that the issues arising out of RERA and CPA proceedings were neither raised nor argued before the Supreme Court.
To leave no scope for confusion, the Delhi High Court in the present case said that the apex court did consider the relationship between proceedings under RERA and CPA in the Pioneer case in following ways-
- The Supreme Court held that remedies given to the homebuyers are concurrent which could be availed under CPA, RERA as well as IBC.
- It was also held that the remedies under RERA were to run parallel with other remedies under other Acts.
Thus, the court was of the view that the judgment in the Pioneer case was binding on the high court in the issues raised in the present case. Hence, the court concluded with the decision that remedies available to the homebuyers under CPA and RERA are concurrent.
This decision of the Delhi High Court comes as a great relief for the homebuyers who are trapped in the business of builders and developers and who struggle to get remedy for the same.
By-
Ayushi Mishra
Student Reporter, INBA