A Party who elects one of two available remedies cannot later invoke an alternative forum for the same cause of action
(RERA visa vis Consumer Protection Act)
Decided on 7th March 2026 ( SC)
In case of M/s Kabra and Associates.& others V/S Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev &others the NCDRC held by order dated 23.08.2023, that the said complaint was maintainable and rejected the preliminary objection raised by M/s Kabra and Associates.
M/s Kabra and Associates and its partners are before this Supreme Court by way an appeal
Setting aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Supreme Court found that flat purchasers who had previously approached the real estate regulatory authority and withdrawn their complaint with liberty to re-file were precluded from subsequently pursuing relief through the consumer protection framework.
Facts of the case
Two flat purchasers acquired Flat Nos. 2101 and 2102 from a real estate developer. They initially approached the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, contending that the developer had failed to register the building as an ongoing project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Complaint Case No. SC10001434 was disposed of by the Authority, vide order dated 14.05.2019, holding that it was not mandatorily for M/s Kabra and Associates to register the project under Section 3 of the Act of 2016 and this way this order attained finality and is therefore binding between the parties.
Thereafter, complainants filed another complaint in CC No.006000000057380 before the Authority under Section 18 of the Act of 2016 seeking refund of the amounts paid by them to M/s Kabra and Associates for their flats, viz., Flat Nos. 2101 and 2102.
During the hearing before the authority complainants had withdrawn their complaint with liberty to file afresh but the complainants did nothing to file a fresh case till the year 2022
Provisions of RERA 2016
As per section RERA Act 2016 , it was open to the complainants to opt for one or the other remedy/ choice was available to them by approaching either the Authority under the provisions of the RERA Act of 2016 or Consumer Protection Act 20119
Section 71. Power to adjudicate
(1)For the purpose of adjudging compensation under sections 12, 14, 18 and section 19, the Authority shall appoint in consultation with the appropriate Government one or more judicial officer as deemed necessary, who is or has been a District Judge to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Provided that any person whose complaint in respect of matters covered under sections 12, 14, 18 and section 19 is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission, established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), on or before the commencement of this Act, he may, with the permission of such Forum or Commission, as the case may be, withdraw the complaint pending before it and file an application before the adjudicating officer under this Act.
On the above principle of election of remedies, the Court referred to three-Judge Bench decision Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited vs. Abhishek Khanna and Other [(2021) 3 SCC 241]. It was observed therein that an election of a remedy arises when two concurrent remedies are available and the aggrieved party chooses to exercise one and, in that event, he loses the right to simultaneously exercise the other for the same cause of action
“An election of a remedy arises when two concurrent remedies are available and the aggrieved party chooses to exercise one and, in that event, he loses the right to simultaneously exercise the other for the same cause of action.”
The Court further observed that
“In this case the complainants chose to invoke the remedy available to them under the Act of 2016 and having done so, they withdrew the complaint filed by them before the Authority with liberty to file a fresh complaint before said Authority. Having committed themselves in that regard, it was not open to them at that stage to opt for the other remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.”
Section 79 of RERA Baars Civil Court suit proceedings regarding Real Estate Matters
Section 79 of the RERA Act 2016 bars civil courts from entertaining suits or proceedings regarding matters that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Adjudicating Officer, or Appellate Tribunal are empowered to determine under the Act. It ensures exclusive jurisdiction for RERA authorities to resolve disputes, effective from May 1, 2017.
Key Aspects of Section 79 (Bar of Jurisdiction):
- Scope: No civil court can grant an injunction against any action taken or intended to be taken by RERA authorities.
- Purpose: To create a specialized, faster, and self-contained dispute resolution system for real estate projects.
- Limitations: While it restricts civil courts, it does not necessarily bar the jurisdiction of consumer forums.
- Authority: The Supreme Court has upheld this section as peremptory, meaning civil courts must reject cases falling under RERA’s purview.
Supreme Court Order ;
In view of the above RERA provisions ,complainants were not entitled to file their case on the similar issue which had attained the finality. Further RERA had given opportunity to file a fresh complaint before it when complainants opted to withdraw its 2nd complaint under section 18 of the Act. Not filing complaint for years, they cannot now choose Consumer Protection Act for their similar grievance for what RERA had agreed to give liberty to file it again
Supreme court set aside the order of National commission holding complainants are not entitled to choose Consumer commissions for their relief .
By Dr Prem Lata
