A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in M/s. Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni and Another authoritatively settles the long-standing conflict between remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Supreme Court examined whether the enactment of RERA impliedly ousted the jurisdiction of consumer fora in disputes concerning delay in delivery of possession and refund of amounts paid by homebuyers.

The controversy arose from a housing project launched in 2011, where despite substantial payments by allottees, construction remained incomplete even after the contractually stipulated period. Consumer complaints were instituted before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking refund with interest. The builder resisted the complaints on grounds that the allottees were not consumers, that RERA created an exclusive statutory mechanism, and that registration of the project under RERA deferred any finding of delay.

The Supreme Court rejected these contentions and reaffirmed that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are additional and concurrent. The Court clarified that Section 79 of RERA bars only civil courts and not consumer fora, which are quasi-judicial bodies. The judgment underscores legislative intent by reading Sections 18 and 88 of RERA harmoniously with Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act.

It recognizes the autonomy of the allottee to choose the forum and protects consumer rights against delayed real estate projects. The ruling has significant implications for real estate litigation, forum choice, and the balance between special statutes and consumer welfare legislation.

Keywords: Consumer Protection Act, RERA, Real estate delay, Jurisdiction of consumer fora, Refund with interest, Allottee rights

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute emanated from persistent delays in completion of a residential housing project named “The ESFERA” launched by the appellant builder in Gurgaon in 2011. The case reflects a recurring pattern in Indian real estate where buyers invest life savings and borrowed funds in housing projects that fail to meet contractual timelines. Prior to the enactment of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, aggrieved homebuyers primarily relied upon consumer fora for redressal of grievances relating to deficiency of service and unfair trade practices. The introduction of RERA sought to regulate the real estate sector and establish specialized authorities for adjudication of disputes.

The appellant builder attempted to rely on the coming into force of RERA to argue that consumer fora no longer retained jurisdiction over disputes relating to real estate projects. This contention was raised despite the fact that the cause of action had arisen much prior to RERA and that the project had already overshot the contractual completion period. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, after appreciating the evidence, allowed the complaints and ordered refund with interest. The appeals before the Supreme Court raised important questions regarding legislative intent, forum exclusivity, and the continued relevance of consumer jurisprudence in the post-RERA regime.

The background of the judgment thus lies at the intersection of two welfare legislations. The Supreme Court was required to interpret overlapping statutory remedies while ensuring that consumer rights were not diluted by procedural technicalities. The decision builds upon established precedents affirming that special statutes do not impliedly repeal consumer remedies unless expressly barred.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant launched a group housing project in 2011 and invited bookings from prospective purchasers. The respondents booked residential apartments and executed Builder Buyer Agreements dated 30.11.2013. The agreements promised delivery of possession within a period of 42 months, subject to limited exceptions such as force majeure. The respondents paid substantial sums, amounting to more than Rs. 63 lakhs in certain cases, against an agreed consideration of approximately Rs. 76 lakhs.

Despite the passage of more than four years from execution of the agreements, construction at the project site remained incomplete. The respondents repeatedly visited the site and found negligible progress. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, the respondents filed consumer complaints before the National Commission in 2017 seeking refund with interest. The builder resisted the complaints by alleging force majeure events such as demonetization, shortage of labour, and delay in statutory approvals. It was also contended that the apartments were booked for commercial purposes and hence the complainants were not consumers.

During the pendency of the consumer complaints, the project was registered under RERA on 17.11.2017, with registration valid until 31.12.2020. The builder sought to rely on this registration to argue that there was no delay attributable to it. The National Commission rejected these defences, held the builder guilty of deficiency of service, and ordered refund of the deposited amounts with 9% simple interest and costs.

Aggrieved by the common order, the builder approached the Supreme Court under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act. The appeals raised identical issues of fact and law and were heard together.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the respondents qualified as “consumers” under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

ii) Whether delay in completion of the project amounted to deficiency in service?

iii) Whether Section 79 of the RERA Act, 2016 barred the jurisdiction of consumer fora?

iv) Whether remedies under the Consumer Protection Act stood excluded after the enactment of RERA?

v) Whether registration of the project under RERA deferred or extinguished accrued consumer rights?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant submitted that the respondents had booked apartments for investment purposes and therefore did not fall within the definition of consumers. It was contended that refusal to accept alternative accommodation indicated speculative intent. Reliance was placed on contractual clauses limiting compensation to nominal amounts.

It was further argued that after the enforcement of RERA, all disputes relating to construction, delay, and possession fell exclusively within the domain of authorities constituted under the RERA Act. The consumer complaints, according to the appellant, were not maintainable in view of Section 79 which bars jurisdiction of civil courts.

The appellant also relied upon the registration certificate issued by the Haryana RERA Authority to argue that the project was lawfully ongoing and could not be treated as delayed until expiry of the registration period. Force majeure events such as demonetization and labour shortages were emphasized to justify delay.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents submitted that each complainant had purchased only one residential apartment for personal use and not for commercial exploitation. Evidence of home loans and retirement funds was relied upon to establish consumer status.

It was contended that delay was admitted by the builder and unsupported by cogent proof of force majeure. The respondents argued that registration under RERA could not retrospectively cure contractual breaches or extinguish accrued rights.

Reliance was placed on judicial precedents holding that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are additional and concurrent. It was emphasized that no plea regarding RERA was raised before the National Commission and that the builder could not be permitted to raise jurisdictional objections belatedly.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 3, Consumer Protection Act, 1986
ii) Section 12(4), Consumer Protection Act, 1986
iii) Section 23, Consumer Protection Act, 1986
iv) Section 18, RERA Act, 2016
v) Section 79, RERA Act, 2016
vi) Section 88, RERA Act, 2016
vii) Section 89, RERA Act, 2016

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the National Commission on both consumer status and delay. It held that the factual conclusion that the respondents were consumers did not warrant interference. The Court observed that speculative intent cannot be presumed merely because alternative accommodation was declined.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 79 of RERA. It held that the bar applies only to civil courts and not to consumer fora, which are quasi-judicial bodies. Relying on Malay Kumar Ganguli v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and other precedents, the Court reiterated that consumer fora do not fall within the expression “civil court”.

The Court emphasized Section 88 of RERA, which expressly provides that RERA is in addition to and not in derogation of other laws. Further reliance was placed on Section 18, which preserves other remedies. The legislative intent, according to the Court, was to provide a choice of forum to the allottee.

The Court rejected the argument that registration under RERA deferred the builder’s liability. It held that delay must be reckoned from the contractual timeline and not from the date of registration. The appeals were dismissed, and the orders of refund with interest were upheld.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the judgment lies in the interpretation that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act continue to coexist with remedies under the RERA Act. The Supreme Court held that Section 79 of RERA does not bar proceedings before consumer fora. The Court clarified that consumer fora are not civil courts and hence fall outside the statutory bar.

Another binding principle is that statutory registration under RERA cannot override contractual obligations already breached. Delay must be assessed with reference to the agreement and not regulatory timelines. The judgment reinforces the doctrine that welfare legislations must receive purposive interpretation in favour of beneficiaries.

The Court further held that the presence of an alternate statutory remedy does not oust consumer jurisdiction unless expressly excluded. This ratio strengthens consumer autonomy and prevents dilution of consumer protection through implied exclusion.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court made observations on the nature of real estate contracts and the imbalance of bargaining power between builders and homebuyers. It noted that clauses providing nominal compensation often operate unfairly against consumers.

The Court also remarked that legislative policy increasingly recognizes homebuyers as a vulnerable class deserving enhanced protection. Though not essential to the decision, these observations reinforce evolving consumer-centric jurisprudence in real estate regulation.

c) GUIDELINES

i) Allottees retain the freedom to choose between remedies under the Consumer Protection Act and RERA.
ii) Consumer fora jurisdiction is not barred by Section 79 of RERA.
iii) Delay must be evaluated with reference to contractual timelines.
iv) Registration under RERA does not extinguish accrued consumer rights.
v) Builders must substantiate force majeure claims with cogent evidence.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred
i) Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha, (2004) 1 SCC 305
ii) National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy, (2012) 2 SCC 506
iii) Malay Kumar Ganguli v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221
iv) Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 416

b) Important Statutes Referred
i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986
ii) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016