Can Homebuyers Use Both Consumer Court and RERA?

Anil Patni and nine other buyers booked flats in "The Esfera" in Sector 13C, Gurgaon, Haryana, after Imperia Structures launched the scheme in 2011. Patni signed a Builder Buyer Agreement on November 30, 2013 for a super built-up area of about 1,650 sq. ft.; the aggregate price was Rs. 76,43,000. By 2017, he had paid Rs. 63,53,625, yet the promised 42-month completion date had passed and the site looked abandoned.

On October 11, 2017, the ten buyers filed Consumer Cases before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in New Delhi. They alleged deficient service, unfair trade practice, and a one-sided Clause 11.4 that capped delay compensation at Rs. 5 per sq. ft. per month after 42 months.

Imperia denied the delay, blamed demonetisation, shortage of contractual labour and delays in statutory approvals, and offered alternative accommodation. The NCDRC rejected the force majeure defence. It found that the buyers were consumers and that Imperia was deficient in rendering service, directing refund of amounts deposited with simple interest at 9% per annum from each deposit date, plus Rs. 50,000 costs per complainant; non-compliance after four weeks would attract 12% interest.

Imperia appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the buyers had booked for profit and that once RERA came into force, every question about the project belonged exclusively to RERA authorities. The Supreme Court dismissed those appeals and confirmed the buyers' right to execute the NCDRC orders.

The legal fight turned on three RERA provisions. Section 79 bars a Civil Court from entertaining any suit or proceeding on a matter the RERA Authority, adjudicating officer or Appellate Tribunal can decide. Section 88 says RERA is in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws. Section 89 gives RERA overriding effect over inconsistent provisions elsewhere.

Imperia's submission was simple: a registered project is RERA's exclusive domain, so the consumer commissions should have sent the buyers to RERA. The buyers answered that consumer remedies were always additional under Section 3 of the CP Act, and that RERA's own Section 18 says the refund remedy is "without prejudice to any other remedy available." They also pointed to Section 12(4) of the CP Act, which forbids transferring an admitted consumer complaint to another tribunal or authority.

The real doubt was whether Section 79's bar against "Civil Court" jurisdiction also hit the National Commission. If the consumer forum were treated as a civil court, RERA could oust it. If it were not, the bar did not reach consumer complaints.

The Court resolved the conflict by reading RERA's territorial bar narrowly and RERA's savings clause broadly. It relied on the principle that proceedings before the National Commission are judicial proceedings but not proceedings before a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure.

• The Court closed the "exclusive jurisdiction" loophole by holding that Section 79 bars only a Civil Court; it does not bar the National Commission or any consumer forum under the CP Act, so a genuine consumer's complaint survives even after RERA registration.
• It also rejected Imperia's timing argument: because the apartments were booked in 2011-2012 and the agreements were signed in November 2013, the 42-month promise expired before RERA registration; registration valid till December 31, 2020 did not defer the buyers' entitlement.

| Your situation | Can you use the consumer forum? | Reason under Imperia Structures | | You are a genuine consumer, bought for self-use, and possession is delayed under the agreement | Yes | CP Act remedies are additional; RERA s.18 is "without prejudice" to them and s.79 does not bar consumer forums. | | You are not a "consumer" under the CP Act and the project is RERA-registered | No consumer forum; no Civil Court suit on RERA-covered matters | s.79 bars a Civil Court for matters RERA can decide; without consumer status, the CP Act route is unavailable. | | Your consumer complaint was already pending before May 1, 2016 | Yes | The proviso to s.71(1) lets you withdraw with permission and move to RERA, but it does not force withdrawal or transfer. | | You file the consumer complaint after RERA came into force | Yes | Nothing in RERA bars a consumer from initiating CP Act proceedings; ss.88 and 18 preserve the choice. | | Your builder-buyer agreement contains an arbitration clause and you are a consumer | Yes | The Court, referring to Emaar MGF Ltd. v. Aftab Singh, kept the consumer remedy open for consumers despite an arbitration clause. |

• Gather the Builder Buyer Agreement, every payment receipt or bank statement showing amounts paid, home-loan EMI records, and written communications demanding possession or refund. In this case, the agreement dated November 30, 2013 and payments up to Rs. 63,53,625 were decisive.
• Keep proof of delay and site status: dated photographs, letters refusing possession, the RERA registration certificate and its conditions. In Imperia Structures, the Haryana Authority's letter of November 17, 2017, condition (x), itself allowed withdrawal if the promoter failed to give possession on the agreement terms.
• File the consumer complaint before the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission under the CP Act; in these cases the NCDRC entertained the complaints because the assessed value was above one crore. For a registered project, an application before the RERA adjudicating officer is also available. The judgment itself fixes no new limitation period.
• Do not make the Imperia Structures mistake of treating RERA registration validity as a pause button. Compute your delay from the agreement date, and do not accept labels like demonetisation or labour shortage as force majeure unless the builder proves them.