Same complaint cannot be filed with both Rera and consumer court: NCDRC

September 25,2023: In a bid to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and contradictory judgments on the same issue between the same parties, a complaint filed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (Rera) cannot be filed under the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). This is applied under ‘estoppel by election of remedy’, as per the recent ruling by a bench held by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya and Bharatkumar Pandya, NCDRC member.

On the basis of this ruling passed on September 20, 2023, the NCDRC can reject a complainant’s argument that states Rera’s Section 18- a person can approach both the Rera tribunal and the consumer court.

The case

The case in point is the complaint registered by Kanoria Energy & Infrastructure against Macrotech Developers for failure to give possession of two flats in Trump Towers Worli on time.

• The complainant had booked a 3BHK and a 4BHK, whose possession was December 31, 2018.
• The possession with grace period expired on December 31, 2019.
• The complainant terminated the agreement and asked for a refund from the developer via a letter on January 17, 2020.
• The developer reverted with an email on January 29, 2020 stating it had received the OC and was in the process of giving possession.
• The complainant sent a legal notice on February 14, 2020 asking for refund and interest from the developer.
• On not getting a reply, complainant filed a complaint with the MahaRERA on August 21, 2020.
• The developer replied with letters of offer of possession on December 30, 2020 with a demand for the balance amount of the flats.

NCRDC’s order

According to the NCDRC’s order, the complainant on August 21, 2020, filed a complaint before the MahaRERA seeking relief of refund that was dismissed on June 27, 2022.  Based on this order, the complainant had filed appeals before appellate authority, which are pending. The complainant also approached the NCDRC in September 2022, alleging deficiency of service by the developer. Therefore, the present complaint is barred on estoppel by election of remedy and is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.