Merely adding claims for compensation and other damages would not alter the nature of the dispute
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising President Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Bharat Kumar Pandya, has refused to entertain a consumer complaint against Garden view Abode Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., observing that the HOME BUYER has already GOT order for refund with interest in the same matter from the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority
The Commission observed that entertaining a complaint seeking the same refund already granted by K-RERA would result in parallel proceedings and multiplicity of litigation, attracting the Doctrine of Election.
Case Law : Nikhil Mehta & Anr. v. Garden view Abode Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Decided on 10.08.2026
Brief of case:
- The complainants had booked an apartment in the residential project “Mantri Blossom”, developed by Garden view Abode Pvt. Ltd. in Bengaluru. They stated that they had paid ₹2,13,08,983 towards the apartment in June 2016.
- The developer failed to complete the project and hand over possession within the stipulated period. Complaint alleged that possession was not delivered even after several years, leading to allegations of prolonged delay and deficiency in service.
- In December 2023, the complainants approached the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) by filing Complaint No. 01817 of 2023. The RERA proceedings concerned their grievance regarding the delayed/non-delivery of the apartment and the relief of refund.
- On 17 October 2025, K-RERA passed an order directing the developer to refund the amount paid by the complainants along with interest.
- The complainants subsequently sought enforcement of the RERA order also
Meanwhile, the complainants approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), alleging
1.Subsequently SARFAESI took possession of the project on 21 June 2024, 2.Unlawful demands allegedly raised in September 2025.
- Non-compliance with the RERA order.
- These events gave rise to independent and continuing causes of action.
- They therefore sought a refund of ₹2,13,08,983 with 21% interest, besides compensation and other damages.
Observation and decision:
NCDRC observed that although remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are available in addition to remedies under other laws, the complainants had already obtained an order from K-RERA granting refund with interest for the same subject matter.
The Commission held that the principal relief sought before it was the same refund already granted by K-RERA. Merely adding claims for compensation and other damages would not alter the nature of the dispute. Entertaining the complaint would therefore result in parallel proceedings and multiplicity of litigation, and the Doctrine of Election would apply.
Accordingly, the NCDRC declined to entertain the consumer complaint. However, it clarified that the complainants remained free to enforce the existing K-RERA order and to pursue any further remedy that may be available to them in law.
Case Title: Nikhil Mehta & Anr. v. Garden view Abode Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: NC/CC/83/2026
Dr Prem Lata
