M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. versus ANIL PATNI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 02-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
373
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD.
v.
ANIL PATNI AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3581-3590 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 02, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.23 – Real Estate
(Regulation and Development)  Act, 2016  (RERA  Act) – ss.18,79
and 88 – Applicability and effect of the RERA Act – A housing
scheme was launched by appellant in 2011 – The respondents-
complainants had booked apartments – The appellant had executed
Builder Buyer Agreement dated 30.11.2013 with each of the
respondents – On 01.05.2016, the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 came into force – A considerable amount
was paid by the respondents for their booked apartments – However,
even after four years there were no signs of the project getting
completed – In 2017, the respondents filed consumer cases before
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – The
Commission concluded that the appellant was deficient in rendering
service and all the complaints were allowed by granting relief of
refund of the amounts deposited by each of the complainants with
simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits with
Rs. 50,000/- towards costs – Aggreived, the appellant filed appeal
before the Supreme Court – The appellant contended that the
respondents were not ‘consumers’ within the meaning of the
Consumer Protection Act – Further, once the RERA Act, came into
force all questions concerning the project including issues relating
to construction and competition thereof, would be under the
exclusive control and jurisdiction of the authorities under the RERA
Act – The Commission, therefore, ought not to have entertained the
consumer cases – Held: The Commission had concluded that; (i) all
the complainants were ‘consumers’ within the meaning of the Act
and that; (ii) there was delay on part of the appellant in completing
the construction within time – The conclusions drawn by the National
Commission were absolutely correct and do not call for any
   [2020] 12 S.C.R. 373
373
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
interference – As far as applicability and effect of the RERA Act is
concerned, s.79 of the RERA Act bars jurisdiction of a Civil Court
to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which
the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal
is empowered under the RERA Act to determine – It is settled law
that the proceedings before the National Commission are although
judicial proceedings, but at the same time it is not a Civil Court
within the meaning of the provisions of the CPC – Thus, s.79 of the
RERA Act does not in any way bar the Commission or forum under
the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act to entertain any
complaint – Further, s.88 specifies that the provisions of the RERA
Act would be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions
of any other law – Also, s.18 itself specifies that the remedy under
the said section is ‘without prejudice to any other remedy available’
– Thus, the parliamentary intent is clear that a choice or discretion
is given to the allottee whether he wishes to initiate appropriate
proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act or file an application
under the RERA Act – Therefore, all the respondents are entitled to
execute the order passed by the Commission in their favour.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. It has consistently been held by this Court that
the remedies available under the provisions of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 are additional remedies over and above the
other remedies including those made available under any special
statutes; and that the availability of an alternate remedy is no bar
in entertaining a complaint under the CP Act. [Para 21][405-D-E]
2. Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 bars jurisdiction of a Civil Court to
entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which
the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal
is empowered under the RERA  Act to determine.  Section 88
specifies that the provisions of the RERA Act would be in addition
to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, while
in terms of Section 89, the provisions of the RERA Act shall have
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any
other law for the time being in force. [Para 25][406-F-H]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
375
3. On plain reading of Section 79 of the RERA Act, an
allottee des

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.