38.6c New Delhi, India, Sunday, April 14, 2024
Judiciary

Consumer Complaint by Allottees Against Builder Not Barred by RERA Act, 2016: Supreme Court

By Parul Singhal      03 November, 2020 05:19 PM      0 Comments
Consumer Complaint by Allottees Against Builder Not Barred by RERA Act, 2016: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a complaint filed before Consumer Forum by allottees against builders is not barred by the Real Estate Regulation Act, 2016. 

The present complainants had booked apartments by executing Builder Buyer Agreements in 2013. They had approached the Consumer Commission which allowed their complaint and ordered refund of the amounts deposited by each of them with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits along with Rs 50, 000/- towards costs. 

The Builders had raised two issues, whether the bar specified under Section 79 of the RERA Act would apply to proceedings initiated under the proceedings of the CP Act and whether there is anything inconsistent in the provisions of the CP Act with that of the RERA Act. 

The court observed that Section 79 of the RERA Act bars the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered under 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. 

A bench of Justice UU Lalit and Vineet Saran took notice of the proviso to Section 71(1) of the RERA Act which entitles a complainant who had initiated proceedings under the CP Act before the RERA Act came into force, to withdraw the proceedings under the CP Act with the permission of the Forum or Commission and file an appropriate application before the adjudicating officer under the RERA Act. 

The court was of the opinion that “Again, insofar as cases, where such proceedings under the CP Act are initiated after the provisions of the RERA Act, came into force, there is nothing in the RERA Act which bars such initiation. The absence of bar under Section 79 to the initiation of proceedings before a for a which cannot be called a Civil Court and express saving under Section 88 of the RERA Act, make the position quite clear. Further, Section 18 itself specifies that the remedy under said Section is without prejudice to any other remedy available”. 

The Court also rejected the contention that since RERA Act was enacted and considering the special expertise and the qualifications of the Chairpersons and Members of the Authority and the Appellate Tribunal such authorities alone must be held entitled to decide all issues concerning the project registered under the RERA Act. 

The present matter took place between Imperia Structures Ltd v. Anil Patni, where the court observed that Section 100 is enacted with the intent to secure the remedies under the new Consumer Protection Act dealing with the protection of the interests of Consumers, even after the RERA Act was brought into force. The Court imposed a penalty of Rs. 50, 000 to be paid by the Builder in respect of each of the Consumer Case. 



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

lsj-exclusive-interview-how-bjp-govt-will-free-chhattisgarh-from-naxal-menace
Trending Interview
LSJ Exclusive Interview: How BJP govt will free Chhattisgarh from “Naxal menace”? [Watch Video]

What is Chhattisgarh govt's plan for solving the Maoist/Naxalite problem in the state? Will there be a surgical strike against the Naxals or solution will be found via diplomatic channels? Read the Exclusive Interview with the Deputy Chief Minister Vijay Sharma.

13 April, 2024 12:33 PM
sc-rejects-review-of-order-to-pay-rs-154-cr-compensation-to-ex-air-force-staff-for-transfusion-of-hiv-infected-blood
Trending Judiciary
SC rejects review of order to pay Rs 1.54 Cr compensation to ex Air Force staff for transfusion of HIV infected blood [Read Order]

SC denies review of Rs 1.54 Cr HIV compensation order to ex-Air Force staff for medical negligence.

13 April, 2024 03:13 PM

TOP STORIES

very-disturbed-by-latest-trend-of-lawyers-commenting-on-pending-cases-cji
Trending Judiciary
Very disturbed by latest trend of lawyers commenting on pending cases: CJI

Chief Justice of India urges lawyers to prioritize court and Constitution over political beliefs, expressing concern over trend of commenting on pending cases.

08 April, 2024 11:19 AM
court-rejects-plea-for-interim-bail-to-brs-leader-k-kavitha
Trending Judiciary
Court rejects plea for interim bail to BRS leader K Kavitha

Delhi court rejects interim bail plea for BRS leader K Kavitha in money laundering case related to Delhi liquor scam. ED opposes bail.

08 April, 2024 12:14 PM
centre-questions-growing-tendency-among-states-to-approach-sc-for-funds
Trending Judiciary
Centre questions growing tendency among States to approach SC for funds

The Centre questions the growing trend of states approaching the Supreme Court for funds, citing timing and advocating for resolution through dialogue.

08 April, 2024 03:58 PM
sc-notice-to-centre-on-plea-to-safeguard-interests-of-intersex-children
Trending Judiciary
SC notice to Centre on plea to safeguard interests of intersex children

Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on PIL for safeguarding intersex children's interests and regulating medical interventions. Details inside.

08 April, 2024 04:35 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email