Holding

The Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedies and its jurisdiction is not barred by Section 79 of the RERA Act, so the Commission’s orders granting refunds with interest stand.

Summary

The appellant, Imperia Structures Ltd., launched a housing scheme in 2011 and entered builder‑buyer agreements with the respondents in 2013. After the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) came into force, the respondents filed consumer complaints alleging delay and deficiency, seeking refunds with interest. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held the respondents to be consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CP Act) and ordered refunds with 9% interest. The appellant appealed, arguing that the respondents were not consumers and that RERA barred the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the CP Act provides additional remedies and that Section 79 of the RERA Act does not bar the Commission or the CP Act forum from entertaining such complaints. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the Commission’s orders affirmed.

Issues considered

The respondents' status as 'consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Whether Section 79 of the RERA Act bars the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from entertaining consumer complaints.
The effect of the RERA Act on the availability of remedies under the Consumer Protection Act.
Whether the appellant can compel withdrawal of the consumer proceedings in favour of RERA proceedings.

Legislation cited

Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 12(4), s. 23, s. 24, s. 3
Consumer Protection Act, 2019s. 100, s. 107
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016s. 18, s. 71(1), s. 79, s. 88, s. 89

Subjects

Consumer Protection ActRERA Actreal estatebuilder‑buyer agreementrefundinterestjurisdictionadditional remediescivil court

Judgment

[2020] 12 S.C.R. 373 373

M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. A
v.
ANIL PATNI AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3581-3590 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 02, 2020 B
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.23 – Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) – ss.18,79
and 88 – Applicability and effect of the RERA Act – A housing
C
scheme was launched by appellant in 2011 – The respondents-
complainants had booked apartments – The appellant had executed
Builder Buyer Agreement dated 30.11.2013 with each of the
respondents – On 01.05.2016, the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 came into force – A considerable amount
was paid by the respondents for their booked apartments – However, D
even after four years there were no signs of the project getting
completed – In 2017, the respondents filed consumer cases before
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – The
Commission concluded that the appellant was deficient in rendering
service and all the complaints were allowed by granting relief of
E
refund of the amounts deposited by each of the complainants with
simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits with
Rs. 50,000/- towards costs – Aggreived, the appellant filed appeal
before the Supreme Court – The appellant contended that the
respondents were not ‘consumers’ within the meaning of the
Consumer Protection Act – Further, once the RERA Act, came into F
force all questions concerning the project including issues relating
to construction and competition thereof, would be under the
exclusive control and jurisdiction of the authorities under the RERA
Act – The Commission, therefore, ought not to have entertained the
consumer cases – Held: The Commission had concluded that; (i) all
G
the complainants were ‘consumers’ within the meaning of the Act
and that; (ii) there was delay on part of the appellant in completing
the construction within time – The conclusions drawn by the National
Commission were absolutely correct and do not call for any

H
373
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A interference – As far as applicability and effect of the RERA Act is
concerned, s.79 of the RERA Act bars jurisdiction of a Civil Court
to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which
the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal
is empowered under the RERA Act to determine – It is settled law
that the proceedings before the National Commission are although
B
judicial proceedings, but at the same time it is not a Civil Court
within the meaning of the provisions of the CPC – Thus, s.79 of the
RERA Act does not in any way bar the Commission or forum under
the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act to entertain any
complaint – Further, s.88 specifies that the provisions of the RERA
C Act would be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions
of any other law – Also, s.18 itself specifies that the remedy under
the said section is ‘without prejudice to any other remedy available’
– Thus, the parliamentary intent is clear that a choice or discretion
is given to the allottee whether he wishes to initiate appropriate
proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act or file an application
D
under the RERA Act – Therefore, all the respondents are entitled to
execute the order passed by the Commission in their favour.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. It has consistently been held by this Court that
E the remedies available under the provisions of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 are additional remedies over and above the
other remedies including those made available under any special
statutes; and that the availability of an alternate remedy is no bar
in entertaining a complaint under the CP Act. [Para 21][405-D-E]

F 2. Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 bars jurisdiction of a Civil Court to
entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which
the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal
is empowered under the RERA Act to determine. Section 88
specifies that the provisions of the RERA Act would be in addition
G 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. [Para 25][406-F-H]

H
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 375
ANOTHER

3. On plain reading of Section 79 of the RERA Act, an A
allottee described in category (B), who does not fulfil the
requirements of being a ‘consumer’, would stand barred from
invoking the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. However, as regards
the allottees who can be called “consumers” within the meaning
of the CP Act, two questions would arise; a) whether the bar
B
specified under Section 79 of the RERA Act would apply to
proceedings initiated under the provisions of the CP Act; and b)
whether there is anything inconsistent in the provisions of the
CP Act with that of the RERA Act. [Para 26][407-A-B]
4. On the strength of the law so declared in Malay Kumar
Ganguli vs. Sukumar Mukherjee, Section 79 of the RERA Act does C
not in any way bar the Commission or Forum under the provisions
of the CP Act to entertain any complaint. [Para 27][407-C-E]
5. Proviso to Section 71(1) of the RERA Act entitles a
complainant who had initiated proceedings under the CP Act
before the RERA Act came into force, to withdraw the proceedings D
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 proviso thus gives a right or an option
to the concerned complainant but does not statutorily force him
to withdraw such complaint nor do the provisions of the RERA E
Act create any mechanism for transfer of such pending
proceedings to authorities under the RERA Act. As against that
the mandate in Section 12(4) of the CP Act to the contrary is
quite significant. 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 F
such initiation. The absence of bar under Section 79 to the
initiation of proceedings before a fora 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 G
to any other remedy available”. Thus, the parliamentary intent
is clear that a choice or discretion is given to the allottee whether
he wishes to initiate appropriate proceedings under the CP Act
or file an application under the RERA Act. [Para 28][407-E-H;
408-A-B]
H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A 6. This Court may now consider the effect of the registration
of the Project under the RERA Act. In the present case the
apartments were booked by the Complainants in 2011-2012 and
the Builder Buyer Agreements were entered into in November,
2013. As promised, the construction should have been completed
in 42 months. The period had expired well before the Project
B
was registered under the provisions of the RERA Act. Merely
because the registration under the RERA Act is valid till
31.12.2020 does not mean that the entitlement of the concerned
allottees to maintain an action stands deferred. It is relevant to
note that even for the purposes of Section 18, the period has to
C be reckoned in terms of the agreement and not the registration.
Condition no. (x) of the letter dated 17.11.2017, issued by the
Haryana Authority regarding registration certificate, also entitles
an allottee to withdraw from the project due to discontinuance of
promoter’s business or promoter fails to give possession of the
apartment/plot in accordance with the terms and condition for
D
sale and makes promoter liable to return the amount with interest.
Therefore, the entitlement of the Complainants must be
considered in the light of the terms of the Builder Buyer
Agreements and was rightly dealt with by the Commission. [Para
33][409-C-F]
E Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural
Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through LRs. and
others (2004) 1 SCC 305 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 659 ;
National Seeds Corporation Limited vs. M.
Madhusudhan Reddy and another (2012) 2 SCC 506 :
F [2012] 2 SCR 1065 ; Virender Jain vs. Alaknanda
Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and others
(2013) 9 SCC 383 : [2013] 2 SCR 1058 ; Malay
Kumar Ganguli vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee (2009) 9
SCC 221 : [2009] 13 SCR 1 ; Pioneer Urban Land
and Infrastructure Limited and another vs. Union of
G India and another (2019) 8 SCC 416 : [2019] 10
SCR 381 – relied on.
Emaar MGF Ltd and anr. vs. Aftab Singh (2019) 12
SCC 751 : [2018] 14 SCR 791 – referred to.

H
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 377
ANOTHER

Case Law Reference A
[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 659 relied on Para 20 (i)
[2012] 2 SCR 1065 relied on Para 20 (ii)
[2013] 2 SCR 1058 relied on Para 20 iii)
[2018] 14 SCR 791 referred to Para 22 B
[2009] 13 SCR 1 relied on Para 27
[2019] 10 SCR 381 relied on Para 31
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3581-
3590 of 2020. C
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2018 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Consumer
Case No. 3011, 3012, 3013, 3014, 3015, 3016, 3017, 3018, 3019 & 3020
of 2017.
With D

Civil Appeal No. 3591 of 2020 (@ Civil Appeal Diary No. 9793 of
2019)
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Simranjeet Singh, Gautam Talukdar, Ms.
Neha Gupta, Ms. Rhea Dube, Aadhar Nautiyal, Rohit Sharma, Ram E
Mohan, Gautam Talukdar, Ms. Priyanjali Singh, Rahul Rathore, Karunesh
Kumar Shukla, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Respondent–in-person
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. These appeals* under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the CP Act”) are directed against
the common judgement and order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) in Consumer Case G
Nos.3011, 3012, 3013, 3014, 3015, 3016, 3017, 3018, 3019 and 3020 of
2017. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid Consumer
Cases are almost identical and for the present purposes the facts leading

*Arising out of Civil Appeal Diary No. 9796 of 2019 H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A to the filing of Consumer Case No.3011 of 2017 are set out in detail and
the appeal arising therefrom is taken as the lead appeal. The connected
appeal* seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 09.08.2018
passed by the Commission in Consumer Case No.1605 of 2017 and
raises same issues of fact and law. Delay in filing these appeals is
condoned.
B
2. A Housing Scheme called “The ESFERA” in Sector 13C,
Gurgaon, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Project’) was launched
by the Appellant sometime in 2011 and all the original Complainants
booked their respective apartments by paying the booking amounts and
thereafter each of them executed Builder Buyer Agreement (hereinafter
C referred to as “the Agreement”) with the Appellant.
3. The Respondents in the leading appeal (hereinafter referred to
as “the Respondents”) booked Apartment No.1803 on the 18th Floor of
Tower No. “C” having super built up area 153.34 Sq. meters (1650 Sq.
feet approx.) @ Rs.36530.2 per Sq. meter (Rs.3395/- per Sq. foot).
D The basic price was thus Rs.56,01,750/- to which additional charges
such as preferential location charges for “corner” “park facing” and for
“higher floor” as well as charges for reserve parking, club membership
and development were added; the aggregate price being Rs.76,43,000/.
4. Clauses 11.1 and 11.2 of the Agreement dated 30.11.2013
E entered into by the Respondents dealt with “delay due to reasons beyond
the control of the Developer/Company” and “failure to deliver possession
due to Government Rules, Orders, Notifications, etc.” respectively.
Clause 11.4 of the Agreement was:-
“11.4 FAILURE TO DELIVER POSSESSION: REMEDY TO
F THE COMPANY
The intending Allottee(s) agrees that in consequence of the
Developer/Company abandoning the Scheme or becoming unable
to give possession within three years from the date of execution
of this Agreement to such extended periods as permitted under
G this Agreement, the Developer/Company shall be entitled to
terminate this Agreement whereupon the Developer/Company’s
liability shall be limited to the refund of the amounts paid by the
Intending Allottee(s) with simple interest @ 9% per annum for
the period such amounts we relying with the Developer/Company
H *Arising out of Civil Appeal Diary No.9793 of 2019
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 379
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

and to pay no other compensation whatsoever. However, the A
Developer/Company may, at its sole option and discretion, decide
not to terminate this Agreement in which event the Developer/
Company agrees to pay only to the original Intending Allottee(s)
and not to anyone else and only in cases other than those provided
in Clauses 11.1, 11.2, 11.3 and Clause 41 and subject to the
B
Intending Allottee(s) not being in default under any term of this
Agreement, compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft. equal to Rs.53.8/
- Per Sq. Meter of the super area of the said Apartment per
month for the period of such delay beyond three & half years or
such extended periods as permitted under this Agreement. The
adjustment of such compensation shall be done only at the time of C
settling the final accounts for handing over/conveyancing the said
Apartment to the intending Allottee(s) first named in this Agreement
and not earlier.”
Clause 41 of the Agreement was as under:-
“41. FORCE MAJURE D

“The Developer/Company shall not be held responsible or liable
for not performing any of its obligations or undertakings provided
for in this Agreement if such performance is prevented, delayed
or hindered by an act of God, fire, flood, explosion, war, riot, terrorist
acts, sabotage, inability to procure or general shortage of energy, E
labour, equipment, facilities, materials or supplies, failure of
transportation, strikes, lock outs, action of labour unions or any
other cause (whether similar or dissimilar to the foregoing) not
within the reasonable control of the Developer/Company.”
5. On 01.05.2016, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) F
Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as, “the RERA Act”) came into force.
6. Over a period of time the Respondents had paid
Rs. 63,53,625/- out of the agreed sum of Rs.76,43,000/-. However, even
after four years there were no signs of the Project getting completed. In
the circumstances Consumer Case No.3011 of 2017 was preferred by G
the Respondents on 11.10.2017 before the Commission submitting, inter
alia,:-
“11. That the complainants regularly visited the site but were
surprised to see that the construction was never in progress. No
one was present on the site to address the queries of the buyers/ H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A allotees/purchases including the present complainant. The O.P
despite taking a substantial amount towards the consideration
deliberately did not construct the towers in which house of the
complainant was situated. The entire site seems to be an
abandoned piece of land with semi constructed structure. Despite
a delay of many months, the construction of the apartment has
B
not been completed. It can hence be seen that the O.P is deficient
in renderings services and after extracting most of the money
from the buyers/allotees/purchases have deliberately stopped the
construction of the houses.
12. That it could be seen that the construction of the residential
C unit ‘THE ESFERA’ in which the buyers/allotees/purchasers flats
were booked many months back, with a promise by the O.P. to
deliver the same within 42 months were never completed for the
reasons best known to the O.P., which clearly shows the ulterior
motive of the O.P. to extract money from the innocent buyers
D fraudulently and also demonstrates the unfair trade practices and
restrictive trade practices under the ambit of consumer protection
act 1986.
16. That as per the clause 11.4 of the Buyer’s Agreement, it was
agreed by the O.P. that in case of any delay, the O.P. shall pay to
E the buyers/allotees/purchasers, a compensation at the rate of
Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month for the period of the delay. It could be
seen here that the O.P has incorporated the Clause 11.4 in the
one sided buyer’s agreement and has offered to pay a meagre
sum of Rs.5/- per square feet for every month of delay if we
calculate the amount in terms of financial charges, it comes to
F approximate @ 1.4% per annum rate of interest. Even these
charges are to be paid after 42 months of period that is taken by
the O.P. to construct the houses as per the buyer’s agreement.
This shows that the O.P. has found a cheap source of funding the
commercial projects from the hard earned savings and borrowed
G money of innocent residential apartments/house buyers like the
present complainants. The O.P is raising funds at the interest
rate of mere 1.4% per annum and that too with initial 42 months
of interest free duration.
30. That the value of goods/services along with compensation
H claimed in the present complaint is above one crore rupees hence
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 381
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

the complainants are entitled to invoke the pecuniary jurisdiction A
of this Hon’ble Commission. The present complaint has been
assessed for a sum of Rs.1,16,94,579/- and requisite fee i.e.
Rs.5000/- by way of a demand draft payable to “THE
REGISTRAR, NCDRC New Delhi” is being paid with this
complaint.
B

32. In view of the above, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed
that this Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleaed to:
C
a. Direct the O.P. to refund the entire amount collected form
the complainants towards the consideration of the Flat along
with interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount paid by them from
the date of each deposit of the amount till it is actually returned
to the complaints.
D
b. Direct the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty
thousand only) to the complainants toward the cost of litigation.
c. Any other order(s) as may be deemed fit and appropriate
may also kindly be passed.”
The other nine Consumer Cases were also filed on the same day. E
7. On 17.11.2017, the Project was registered with Haryana Real
Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as,
“Haryana Authority”). The letter dated 17.11.2017 issued by Haryana
Authority stated:-
“….. Your request for registration of Group Housing Colony being F
developed over an area of 60460 Sq. Mtrs. Situated in Sector-37-
C, Village Gharoli Khurd and Basai, Gurugram, Haryana with
regard to License No.64 of 2011 dated 16.07.2011 issued by the
Director, town and Country Planning Department, Haryana, has
been examined vis-à-vis the provisions of the Real Estate G
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and HRERA Rules, 2017
and accordingly a registration certificate is herewith issued with
following terms and conditions:-

H
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A (i) The Promoter shall comply with the provisions of the Act
and the rules and regulations made there under;
(ii) The Promoter shall deposit seventy percent of the amount
to be realized from the allottees by the Promoter in a separate
account to be maintained in a schedule bank to meet
B exclusively the cost of land and construction purpose as per
provision of Section 4 (2) (L) (D);
(iii) The registration shall be valid for a period commencing from
17.11.2017 to 31.12.2020;
(iv) The Promoter shall offer to execute and register a
C conveyance deed in favour of the allotees or the association
of the allottees, as the case may be, of the apartment, plot or
building as the case may be, or on the common areas as per
provision of section 17 of the Act;
(v) The Promoter shall take all the pending approvals from
D various competent authorities on time;
(vi) The Promoter shall pay all outstanding payment i.e. land
cost, construction cost, ground rent, municipal or other local
taxes, charges for water or electricity, maintenance charges,
including mortgage loan and interest on mortgages or other
E encumbrances and such other liabilities payable to competent
authorities, bank and financial institutions which are related
to the project until he transfers the physical possession of
the real estate project to the allottees or the associations of
allottees, as the case may be;
F (vii) The Promoter shall be responsible for providing and
maintaining the essential services, on reasonable charges,
till the taking over of the maintenance of the project by the
Municipal Corporation, Gurugram or any other local authority
Association of the Allottees, as the case may be;
G (viii) The Promoter shall not accept a sum more than ten percent
of the cost of the apartment, plot or building as the case may
be, as an advance payment or an application fee, from a
person without first entering into a written agreement for
sale with such person and register the said agreement for
sale, under any law for the time being in force;
H
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 383
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

(ix) The Promoter shall adhere all the terms and conditions of A
this registration and license, sanctioned plans and other
permissions issued by Competent Authorities under the
provision of any other law for the time being in force as
applicable to the project. In case any deficiency in fee is
found at later stage and the same shall be recoverable from
B
the promoter/owner accordingly.
(x) The promoter shall return the amount with interest in case,
allotee wishes to withdraw from the project due to
discontinuance of promoter’s business or promoter fails to
give possession of the apartment/plot in accordance with
terms and conditions of agreement for sale in terms of C
sub-section (4) of Section-19. The promoter shall return the
entire amount with interest as well as the compensation
payable. The rate of interest payable by the promoter to the
allottee or by the allottee to the promoter, as the case may
be, shall be the State Bank of India highest marginal cost of D
lending rate plus two percent. The promoter shall adhere
the provisions of The Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 and its Rules 2017 issued by the
State Government.
(xi) The promoter shall adopt the model agreement for sale E
(Annexure-A) of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017 at the time of booking from the
prospective allottees.
(xii) The Promoter shall, upon receiving his Login Id and password
under clause(a) of sub-section (1) or under sub-section 92) F
of section 5, as the case may be, create his web page on the
website of the Authority and enter all details of the proposed
project as provided under sub-section (2) of section 4,
including the followings:-
a) Details of the registration granted by the authority; G
b) Quarterly up-to-date list of number and type of
apartments for plots, as the case may be, booked;
c) Quarterly up-to-date the list of number of garages
covered parking lot booked;
H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A d) Quarterly up-to-date the list of approvals taken and
the approvals which are pending subsequent to
commencement certificate;
e) quarterly up-to-date status of the project; and
f) such other information and documents as may be
B specified by the regulations made by the authority.
(xiii) The Promoter shall be responsible to make available to the
allottees, the following information at the time of the booking
and issue of allotment letter:-

C a) Sanctioned plans, layout, along with specifications,
approved by the competent authority and other
information as prescribed in Rule 14 of 2017 framed
under the provision of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act 2016 and the same shall be
displayed at the site or such other place as may be
D specified by the regulations made by the Authority.”
8. In its response dated 18.01.2018 to the aforestated Consumer
Case No.3011 of 2017, the Appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the
Commission inter alia, on the ground that the apartment having been
booked for commercial purposes, the Respondents would not come within
E the definition of “the consumer” under Section 2(d) of the CP Act. No
reference was however made to the fact that the Project had been
registered under the RERA Act. It was submitted:-
“8. That the contents and averments made in para 8 are wrong
and denied. It is denied that the date of possession of the unit
F was 30th May, 2017. It is submitted that the respondents had
clearly mentioned the schedule for possession of the said
apartment/Unit was based upon its present plans and estimates
and subject to all just exceptions, contemplates to complete
the construction of the said building/said apartment within a
period of three and half years for the date of execution of this
G
agreement unless there is delay or there shall be failure due to
reasons beyond the control of the company including Force-
Majeure events, delay due to compliance of new rules,
regulations, orders or notifications made/issued by government
or any other authorities with respect to construction at the
H project site.
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 385
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

11. That the contents and averments made in Para 11 are wrong A
and denied. It is pertinent to mention here that the construction
of the Tower in which the Unit of the Complainant was allotted
is in full Swing and is nearing possession. The allegations
levelled by the Complainant are concocted & baseless.
9. In their replication, the Respondents submitted, inter alia,:- B
“….. the buyer’s agreement was a fixed set of papers, which
was asked to be signed by the complainant and no modification
was entertained by the O.P. On request to change the one
sided clauses, it was told that the buyer’s agreement has to be
signed as it is and in case it is not acceptable than the allotment C
will stand cancelled and earnest money will be forfeited.”
10. Consumer Case No.3011 of 2017 was allowed by the
Commission by its judgement and order dated 12.09.2018. It was
observed:-
“10. It is pertinent to note that the Developer has not filed any D
evidence to support his contention that the delay occurred due to
force majeure events. In fact demonetization, non-availability of
contractual labour, delay in notifying approvals cannot be construed
to be force majeure events from any angle.
11. Learned Counsel for the Developer vehemently argued that E
the Complainants were offered alternative accommodation vide
letter dated 03.04.2017 which was not accepted by them. The
said letter is reproduced as hereunder:-
“Be that as it may, in view of your allegations of delay which
we deny, we hereby offer that till we complete construction of F
your subject matter flat we shall arrange alternative
accommodation/flat for you in Group Housing Colony named
“Takshila Heights” situated at Sector-37C, Gurgaon on lease/
rent with immediate effect. We will bear the rent of alternative
accommodation/flat at “Takshila Heights”. However, you shall
G
have to pay the common area maintenance charges and other
user based charges like electricity, etc., which you would have
done for your flat in “Esfera” as well.” (Emphasis supplied).

H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A 12. It is significant to mention that in the afore-noted letter there
is an admission by the Developer that the construction is still not
completed. Additionally, even the specific date of delivery of
possession has not been mentioned anywhere either in the Written
Version or in the Affidavit or even in the letter dated 03.04.2017
which the Counsel is relying upon.”
B
Concluding that the Appellant was deficient in rendering service,
the Commission granted relief to the Respondents in following terms:-
“14. Keeping in view the admitted incomplete construction, the
fact that some of the Complainants have also taken bank loans
C and are paying EMIs and considering the stipulation provided in
Clause 11.4, this Complaint is partly allowed directing the
Developer to refund the amounts deposited with simple interest
@ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits till the date of
realization together with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to each of
the Complainants. The directions are to be complied withing fours
D weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing
which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the said
period.”
11. Similarly, all other complaints were allowed by the Commission
granting relief of refund of the amounts deposited by each of the
E Complainants with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the respective
dates of deposits alongwith Rs.50,000/- towards costs. It was also
directed that the amounts be deposited within four weeks, failing which
the amounts would carry interest @ 12% per annum.
12. The Appellant being aggrieved preferred the instant appeals
F on 14.03.2019. By way of Additional Documents, a copy of the letter
dated 17.11.2017 was placed on record. An order passed by Haryana
Authority, Gurugram on 17.01.2019 in a complaint preferred by one
Himanshu Giri was also placed on record. The directions issued in said
order were to the following effect:-
G “27. After taking into consideration all the material facts as
adduced and produced by both the parties, the authority exercising
powers vested in it under section 37 of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016 hereby issues the following directions
to the respondent in the interest of justice and fair play:
H
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 387
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

i. The respondent is directed to provide delay possession charges A
at the prescribed rate of 10.75% per annum for every month of
delay w.e.f. 15.9.2016 as per the provisions of Section 18(1) of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
ii. The arrears of interest accrued so far shall be paid to the
complainant within 90 days from the date of this order and thereafter B
monthly payment of interest till handing over the possession shall
be paid before 10th of subsequent month.”
13. The appeal memo also did not make any reference to the fact
that the Project had been registered under the RERA Act. In the leading
appeal, following assertions were made in the list of dates and events:- C
“2011-2017 The Appellant was unable to hand over the
possession to the Respondents within the stipulate
time as stipulated in Clause 10.1 due to reasons
beyond control of the Appellant viz., due to severe
shortage of contractual labourers and delay caused D
in obtaining statutory requisite permissions for
carrying on the construction of said flats, failed to
deliver possession of the subject flats to the
Respondents within the prescribed time limit.
One of the grounds raised in the appeal memo was as under:- E
“C. Because the Hon’ble Commission failed to appreciate
that the Policy of Demonetization introduced by the Government
of India constituted as an event of Force Majeure since as a
consequence of the said event, numerous persons including
the Appellant suffered shortage of cash which resulted in delay F
in delivering possession to the Respondent. It is humbly
submitted that the shortage of cash ensuing as a result of the
Demonitization policy resulted in the stopping of work since
the process of construction requires many payments to be made
in cash on a day to day basis, for example, wages paid to daily
wage workers, payments made against delivery of construction G
materials, etc.”
14. After issuance of notice on 05.04.2019, it was submitted by
the Respondents that the Appellant had partially refunded the amounts

H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A in terms of the directions of the Commission. Following details indicate
that in four out of ten cases, partial refund was made.
“

B

C

D

E

”
Refund of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Respondents, was made on
F 27.03.2019 i.e. even after filing of the leading appeal.
15. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant
submitted inter alia:-
a) The Appellant had completed Phase-I of the
Project well-in-time and Phase-II of the Project
G
concerning about 437 allottees was the matter in
issue. Out of these 437 allottees, only in 59 cases
complaints were filed under the CP Act, while Mr.
Himanshu Giri had approached authorities under the
RERA Act. A majority of the allottees had thus
H reposed faith in the Appellant.
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 389
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

b) The Appellant had offered alternative A
accommodation to all the allottees. But the offer
was rejected by all the Complainants which was
indicative that the apartments were booked for
investment purposes.
c) The Complainants were not “Consumers” B
within the meaning of the CP Act as the apartments
were booked merely for profit motive.
d) Once the RERA Act came into force, all
questions concerning the Project including issues
relating to construction and completion thereof, would C
be under the exclusive control and jurisdiction of
the authorities under the RERA Act. The
Commission, therefore, ought not to have
entertained the Consumer Cases.
e) The Registration Certificate dated 17.11.2017 D
being valid upto 31.12.2020, the Appellant could
not be said to have delayed the construction and
consequently, there could be no finding that there
was deficiency on part of the Appellant.
f) The order passed in the case of Himanshu Giri E
had directed payment of interest @ 10.75% per
annum without issuing any direction for refund of
money. The approach so adopted would be
conducive to completion of construction and at the
same time would balance the interest of the allottees.
F
g) Considering the provisions of the RERA Act
and the fact that the registration being valid upto
31.12.2020, the orders passed by the Commission
be set aside and instead the Complainants be granted
interest @ 10.75% p.a. on the amounts deposited;
whereby the Project would be completed without G
putting the Appellant under any financial strain and
at the same time the relief in the nature of interest
on investment would also be accruable to the
allottees.
H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A 16. Ms. Priyanjali Singh, learned Advocate for the Respondents
as well as for some of the other Complainants submitted:-
a) All the Complainants had purchased only one
residential apartment each for self-use. They had
taken home loans, except the Complainant in
B Consumer Case No.3020 of 2017 who after his
retirement as Group Captain from the Indian Air
Force had used all his retirement dues to book the
apartment. Therefore, the issue whether the
Complainants satisfied the requirements of being
“Consumers” under the provisions of the CP Act
C was rightly decided in favour of the Complainants.
b) The question whether the delay occurred due
to force majeure events was also rightly answered
in favour of the Complainants and no reasonable
explanation was available on record to dislodge that
D finding.
c) In the backdrop of these findings, the
Commission was justified in accepting the claim of
the Complainants. In fact, the award of interest @
9% per annum was at a lower level.
E
d) At no stage, any plea was taken before the
Commission that the Project was registered under
the RERA Act or about the effect of the RERA
Act. No such plea was taken even in the appeal
memo. Consequently, it would not be open to the
F Appellant to raise any submissions about the
applicability of the RERA Act.
e) In any case, as construed by this Court
consistently, the remedy afforded by the CP Act
would be an additional remedy to a consumer and
G said legal position remained unchanged even after
the enactment of the RERA Act.
17. Three Complainants viz. (a) Chandra Shekhar; (b) Rajat
Verma; and (c) Krishan Kumar appeared in person and advanced
submissions. It was submitted, inter alia, that the decision of the
H
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 391
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Commission did not call for any interference and that they be refunded A
the entire amount with 12% interest instead of 9% as awarded by the
Commission.
18. At the outset, we must deal with two factual issues. It was
concluded by the Commission that; (i) all the Complainants were
‘Consumers’ within the meaning of the Act and that; (ii) there was B
delay on part of the Appellant in completing the construction within time.
The stand taken by the Appellant at various stages, itself acknowledged
that there was delay but the Appellant tried to rely on certain events as
mentioned in ground (c) quoted hereinabove. In our view, the conclusions
drawn by the National Commission in relation to these issues are
absolutely correct and do not call for any interference. C

19. Before we deal with the issues about the applicability and
effect of the RERA Act as well as the effect of registration of the
Project under the RERA Act, the relevant provisions of the CP Act and
the RERA Act may be extracted:-
D
A] The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The CP Act was enacted, inter alia, “to provide for better
protection of the interest of the consumer”; to promote and protect
the rights of consumers such as “the rights to seek redressal against
unfair trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers”. E
Sections 3, 12(4) and 24 were to the following effect: -
“3. Act not in derogation of any other law.—The provisions
of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the
provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
12. Manner in which complaint shall be made. …. F
(1) ………
(2) ………
(3) ………
(4) Where a complaint is allowed to be proceeded with under G
sub-section (3), the District Forum may proceed with the complaint
in the manner provided under this Act:
Provided that where a complaint has been admitted by the District
Forum, it shall not be transferred to any other court or tribunal or
H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A any authority set up by or under any other law for the time being
in force.
… … …
24. Finality of orders. — Every order of a District Forum, the
State Commission or the National Commission shall, if no appeal
B has been preferred against such order under the provisions of this
Act, be final.”
B] The Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016

C Sections 2(d), 2(zg), 2(zj) and 2(zk) define expressions “Allottee”,
“Person, “Project” and “Promoter” respectively. Sections 3, 4, 5, 18, 19,
22, 46, 71, 79, 88 and 89 of the RERA Act are as under:-
“3. Prior registration of real estate project with Real Estate
Regulatory Authority
D (1) No promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for
sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment
or building, as the case may be, in any real estate project or part
of it, in any planning area, without registering the real estate project
with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under this
Act:
E
PROVIDED that projects that are ongoing on the date of
commencement of this Act and for which the completion certificate
has not been issued, the promoter shall make an application to the
Authority for registration of the said project within a period of
three months from the date of commencement of this Act:
F
PROVIDED FURTHER that if the Authority thinks necessary,
in the interest of allottees, for projects which are developed beyond
the planning area but with the requisite permission of the local
authority, it may, by order, direct the promoter of such project to
register with the Authority, and the provisions of this Act or the
G rules and regulations made thereunder, shall apply to such projects
from that stage of registration.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no
registration of the real estate project shall be required—

H
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 393
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

(a) where the area of land proposed to be developed does not A
exceed five hundred square meters or the number of
apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed
eight inclusive of all phases: Provided that, if the appropriate
Government considers it necessary, it may, reduce the
threshold below five hundred square meters or eight
B
apartments, as the case may be, inclusive of all phases,
for exemption from registration under this Act;
(b) where the promoter has received completion certificate
for a real estate project prior to commencement of this
Act;
C
(c) for the purpose of renovation or repair or re-development
which does not involve marketing, advertising selling or
new allotment of any apartment, plot or building, as the
case may be, under the real estate project.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, where the real estate D
project is to be developed in phases, every such phase shall be
considered a stand alone real estate project, and the promoter
shall obtain registration under this Act for each phase separately.
4. Application for registration of real estate projects
(1) Every promoter shall make an application to the Authority for E
registration of the real estate project in such form, manner, within
such time and accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed.
(2) The promoter shall enclose the following documents along
with the application referred to in sub-section (1), namely:—
F
(a) a brief details of his enterprise including its name, registered
address, type of enterprise (proprietorship, societies,
partnership, companies, competent authority), and the
particulars of registration, and the names and photographs
of the promoter;
(b) a brief detail of the projects launched by him, in the past G
five years, whether already completed or being developed,
as the case may be, including the current status of the
said projects, any delay in its completion, details of cases
pending, details of type of land and payments pending;
H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A (c) an authenticated copy of the approvals and
commencement certificate from the competent authority
obtained in accordance with the laws as may be applicable
for the real estate project mentioned in the application,
and where the project is proposed to be developed in
phases, an authenticated copy of the approvals and
B
commencement certificate from the competent authority
for each of such phases;
(d) the sanctioned plan, layout plan and specifications of the
proposed project or the phase thereof, and the whole
project as sanctioned by the competent authority;
C
(e) the plan of development works to be executed in the
proposed project and the proposed facilities to be provided
thereof including fire fighting facilities, drinking water
facilities, emergency evacuation services, use of
renewable energy;
D
(f) the location details of the project, with clear demarcation
of land dedicated for the project along with its boundaries
including the latitude and longitude of the end points of
the project;

E (g) proforma of the allotment letter, agreement for sale, and
the conveyance deed proposed to be signed with the
allottees;
(h) the number, type and the carpet area of apartments for
sale in the project along with the area of the exclusive
F balcony or verandah areas and the exclusive open terrace
areas apartment with the apartment, if any;
(i) the number and areas of garage for sale in the project;
(j) the names and addresses of his real estate agents, if any,
for the proposed project;
G (k) the names and addresses of the contractors, architect,
structural engineer, if any and other persons concerned
with the development of the proposed project;
(l) a declaration, supported by an affidavit, which shall be
signed by the promoter or any person authorised by the
H promoter, stating:—
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 395
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

(A) that he has a legal title to the land on which the A
development is proposed along with legally valid
documents with authentication of such title, if such
land is owned by another person;
(B) that the land is free from all encumbrances, or as
the case may be details of the encumbrances on B
such land including any rights, title, interest or name
of any party in or over such land along with details;
(C) the time period within which he undertakes to
complete the project or phase thereof, as the case
may be; C
(D) that seventy per cent. of the amounts realised for
the real estate project from the allottees, from time
to time, shall be deposited in a separate account to
be maintained in a scheduled bank to cover the cost
of construction and the land cost and shall be used D
only for that purpose: Provided that the promoter
shall withdraw the amounts from the separate
account, to cover the cost of the project, in
proportion to the percentage of completion of the
project: Provided further that the amounts from the
separate account shall be withdrawn by the E
promoter after it is certified by an engineer, an
architect and a chartered accountant in practice
that the withdrawal is in proportion to the percentage
of completion of the project: Provided also that the
promoter shall get his accounts audited within six F
months after the end of every financial year by a
chartered accountant in practice, and shall produce
a statement of accounts duly certified and signed
by such chartered accountant and it shall be verified
during the audit that the amounts collected for a
particular project have been utilised for the project G
and the withdrawal has been in compliance with
the proportion to the percentage of completion of
the project. Explanation.— For the purpose of this
clause, the term “schedule bank” means a bank
H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A included in the Second Schduled to the Reserve
Bank of India Act, 1934;
(E) that he shall take all the pending approvals on time,
from the competent authorities;
(F) that he has furnished such other documents as may
B be prescribed by the rules or regulations made under
this Act; and (m) such other information and
documents as may be prescribed.
(3) The Authority shall operationalise a web based online system
for submitting applications for registration of projects within a
C period of one year from the date of its establishment.
5. Grant of registration
(1) On receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of section
4, the Authority shall within a period of thirty days.
D (a) grant registration subject to the provisions of this Act and
the rules and regulations made thereunder, and provide a
registration number, including a Login Id and password
to the applicant for accessing the website of the Authority
and to create his web page and to fill therein the details
of the proposed project; or
E
(b) reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing,
if such application does not conform to the provisions of
this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder:
PROVIDED that no application shall be rejected unless the
F applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
(2) If the Authority fails to grant the registration or reject the
application, as the case may be, as provided under sub-section
(1), the project shall be deemed to have been registered, and the
Authority shall within a period of seven days of the expiry of the
G said period of thirty days specified under sub-section (1), provide
a registration number and a Login Id and password to the promoter
for accessing the website of the Authority and to create his web
page and to fill therein the details of the proposed project.
(3) The registration granted under this section shall be valid for a
H period declared by the promoter under sub-clause (C) of clause
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 397
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

(1) of sub-section (2) of section 4 for completion of the project or A
phase thereof, as the case may be.
18. Return of amount and compensation
(1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession
of an apartment, plot or building,—
B
(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale
or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified
therein; or
(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on
account of suspension or revocation of the registration C
under this Act or for any other reason,
he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee
wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any
other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in
respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with D
interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including
compensation in the manner as provided under this Act:
PROVIDED that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw
from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for
every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at
E
such rate as may be prescribed.
(2) The promoter shall compensate the allottees in case of any
loss caused to him due to defective title of the land, on which the
project is being developed or has been developed, in the manner
as provided under this Act, and the claim for compensation under
F
this subsection shall not be barred by limitation provided under
any law for the time being in force.
(3) If the promoter fails to discharge any other obligations imposed
on him under this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder
or in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement
for sale, he shall be liable to pay such compensation to the allottees, G
in the manner as provided under this Act.
19. Rights and duties of allottees
(1) The allottee shall be entitled to obtain the information relating
to sanctioned plans, layout plans along with the specifications, H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A approved by the competent authority and such other information
as provided in this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder
or the agreement for sale signed with the promoter.
(2) The allottee shall be entitled to know stage-wise time schedule
of completion of the project, including the provisions for water,
B sanitation, electricity and other amenities and services as agreed
to between the promoter and the allottee in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the agreement for sale.
(3) The allottee shall be entitled to claim the possession of
apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and the association
C of allottees shall be entitled to claim the possession of the common
areas, as per the declaration given by the promoter under sub-
clause (C) of clause (I) of sub-section (2) of section 4.
(4) The allottee shall be entitled to claim the refund of amount
paid along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and
D compensation in the manner as provided under this Act, from the
promoter, if the promoter fails to comply or is unable to give
possession of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be,
in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or due to
discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of
suspension or revocation of his registration under the provisions
E of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder.
(5) The allottee shall be entitled to have the necessary documents
and plans, including that of common areas, after handing over the
physical possession of the apartment or plot or building as the
case may be, by the promoter.
F
(6) Every allottee, who has entered into an agreement for sale to
take an apartment, plot or building as the case may be, under
section 13, shall be responsible to make necessary payments in
the manner and within the time as specified in the said agreement
for sale and shall pay at the proper time and place, the share of
G the registration charges, municipal taxes, water and electricity
charges, maintenance charges, ground rent, and other charges, if
any.
(7) The allottee shall be liable to pay interest, at such rate as may
be prescribed, for any delay in payment towards any amount or
H charges to be paid under sub-section (6).
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 399
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

(8) The obligations of the allottee under sub-section (6) and the A
liability towards interest under sub-section (7) may be reduced
when mutually agreed to between the promoter and such allottee.
(9) Every allottee of the apartment, plot or building as the case
may be, shall participate towards the formation of an association
or society or cooperative society of the allottees, or a federation B
of the same.
(10) Every allottee shall take physical possession of the apartment,
plot or building as the case may be, within a period of two months
of the occupancy certificate issued for the said apartment, plot or
building, as the case may be. C
(11) Every allottee shall participate towards registration of the
conveyance deed of the apartment, plot or building, as the case
may be, as provided under sub-section (1) of section 17 of this
Act.
22. Qualifications of Chairperson and Members of D
Authority.-
The Chairperson and other Members of the Authority shall be
appointed by the appropriate Government on the recommendations
of a Selection Committee consisting of the Chief Justice of the
High Court or his nominee, the Secretary of the Department dealing E
with Housing and the Law Secretary, in such manner as may be
prescribed, from amongst persons having adequate knowledge of
and professional experience of at-least twenty years in case of
the Chairperson and fifteen years in the case of the Members in
urban development, housing, real estate development, F
infrastructure, economics, technical experts from relevant fields,
planning, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, management,
social service, public affairs or administration:
Provided that a person who is, or has been, in the service of the
State Government shall not be appointed as a Chairperson unless
G
such person has held the post of Additional Secretary to the Central
Government or any equivalent post in the Central Government or
State Government:
Provided further that a person who is, or has been, in the service
of the State Government shall not be appointed as a member unless
H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A such person has held the post of Secretary to the State Government
or any equivalent post in the State Government or Central
Government.
46. Qualifications for appointment of Chairperson and
Members.-
B 1) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the
Chairperson or a Member of the Appellate Tribunal unless he,—
(a) in the case of Chairperson, is or has been a Judge of a
High Court; and

C (b) in the case of a Judicial Member he has held a judicial
office in the territory of India for at least fifteen years or has
been a member of the Indian Legal Service and has held the
post of Additional Secretary of that service or any equivalent
post, or has been an advocate for at least twenty years with
experience in dealing with real estate matters; and
D
(c) in the case of a Technical or Administrative Member, he is
a person who is well-versed in the field of urban development,
housing, real estate development, infrastructure, economics,
planning, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, management,
public affairs or administration and possesses experience of at
E least twenty years in the field or who has held the post in the
Central Government or a State Government equivalent to the
post of Additional Secretary to the Government of India or an
equivalent post in the Central Government or an equivalent
post in the State Government.
F (2) The Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal shall be appointed
by the appropriate Government in consultation with the Chief
Justice of High Court or his nominee.
(3) The Judicial Members and Technical or Administrative
Members of the Appellate Tribunal shall be appointed by the
G appropriate Government on the recommendations of a Selection
Committee consisting of the Chief Justice of the High Court or
his nominee, the Secretary of the Department handling Housing
and the Law Secretary and in such manner as may be prescribed.

H
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 401
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

71. Power to adjudicate A
(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, B
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 C
Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer
Redressal Commission, established under section 9 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 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 D
under this Act.
(2) The application for adjudging compensation under sub-section
(1), shall be dealt with by the adjudicating officer as expeditiously
as possible and dispose of the same within a period of sixty days
from the date of receipt of the application: E

PROVIDED that where any such application could not be disposed
of within the said period of sixty days, the adjudicating officer
shall record his reasons in writing for not disposing of the application
within that period.
F
(3) While holding an inquiry the adjudicating officer shall have
power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give
evidence or to produce any document which in the opinion of the
adjudicating officer, may be useful for or relevant to the subject
matter of the inquiry and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the G
person has failed to comply with the provisions of any of the
sections specified in sub-section (1), he may direct to pay such
compensation or interest, as the case any be, as he thinks fit in
accordance with the provisions of any of those sections.
H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A 79. Bar of jurisdiction
No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or
proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority or the
adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or
under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by
B any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be
taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.
88. Application of other laws not barred
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in
derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in
C force.
89. Act to have overriding effect
The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the
D time being in force.”
20. The question whether the remedies available to the consumers
under the provisions of the CP Act would be additional remedies, was
considered by this Court in some cases, the notable cases being:-
i) In Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit
E Society vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through LRs. and others*, this
Court observed:-
“11. From the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the
scheme of the 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective
of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of
F the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better
redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious
and effective redressal is made available to consumers. To
serve the purpose of the Act, various quasi-judicial forums are
set up at the district, State and national level with wide range
of powers vested in them. These quasi-judicial forums,
G observing the principles of natural justice, are empowered to
give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever
appropriate, compensation to the consumers and to impose
penalties for non-compliance with their orders.

H *(2004) 1 SCC 305
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 403
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

12. As per Section 3 of the Act, as already stated above, the A
provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation
of any other provisions of any other law for the time being in
force. Having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose
sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers
better, the provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively
B
and purposefully in the context of the present case to give
meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when
Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to
other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is a
clear bar.”
The issue in this case was whether in the face of Section 156 of C
the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 the concerned persons
could avail remedies under the CP Act. Interpreting Section 3 of the CP
Act, it was held that the remedy provided under the CP Act would be in
addition to the remedies provided under the other Acts.
ii) In National Seeds Corporation Limited vs. M. Madhusudhan D
Reddy and another*, it was observed:-
“57. It can thus be said that in the context of farmers/growers
and other consumers of seeds, the Seeds Act is a special
legislation insofar as the provisions contained therein ensure
that those engaged in agriculture and horticulture get quality E
seeds and any person who violates the provisions of the Act
and/or the Rules is brought before the law and punished.
However, there is no provision in that Act and the Rules framed
thereunder for compensating the farmers, etc. who may suffer
adversely due to loss of crop or deficient yield on account of F
defective seeds supplied by a person authorised to sell the
seeds. That apart, there is nothing in the Seeds Act and the
Rules which may give an indication that the provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act are not available to the farmers who
are otherwise covered by the wide definition of “consumer”
under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. As a G
matter of fact, any attempt to exclude the farmers from the
ambit of the Consumer Protection Act by implication will make
that Act vulnerable to an attack of unconstitutionality on the

*(2012) 2 SCC 506
H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A ground of discrimination and there is no reason why the
provisions of the Consumer Protection Act should be so
interpreted.
… … …
62. Since the farmers/growers purchased seeds by paying a
B price to the appellant, they would certainly fall within the ambit
of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act and there
is no reason to deny them the remedies which are available to
other consumers of goods and services.”
In this case the provisions of the CP Act and those under the
C Seeds Act, 1966 were considered.
iii) In Virender Jain vs. Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing
Society Limited and others*, it was observed by this Court as
under:-

D “13. The other question which needs to be considered is
whether the District Forum should not have entertained the
complaints filed by the appellants and directed them to avail
the statutory remedies available under the Cooperative Societies
Act. Shri Neeraj Jain vehemently argued that the forums
constituted under the Act cannot grant relief to the appellants
E because the action taken by Respondent 1 was approved by
the authorities constituted under the Cooperative Societies Act,
who were not impleaded as parties in the complaints.
14. In our view, there is no merit in the submission of the learned
Senior Counsel. In the complaints filed by them, the appellants
F had primarily challenged the action of Respondent 1 to refund
the amounts deposited by them and thereby extinguished their
entitlement to get the flats. Therefore, the mere fact that the
action taken by Respondent 1 was approved by the Assistant
Registrar, Cooperative Societies and higher authorities, cannot
deprive the appellants of their legitimate right to seek remedy
G
under the Act, which is in addition to the other remedies available
to them under the Cooperative Societies Act. Law on this issue
must be treated as settled by the judgments of this Court in
Thirumurugan Coop. Agricultural Credit Society v. M.

H *(2013) 9 SCC 383
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 405
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Lalitha3, Kishore Lal v. ESI Corpn.* and National Seeds A
Corpn. Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy2.
15. In the last mentioned judgment, National Seeds Corpn.
Case4, this Court referred to the earlier judgments in Fair Air
Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi*, Thirumurugan Coop.
Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha3, Skypak Couriers B
Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.* and Trans Mediterranean
Airways v. Universal Exports* and held that the remedy
available under the Act is in addition to the remedies available
under other statutes and the availability of alternative remedies
is not a bar to the entertaining of a complaint filed under the
Act.” C

In this case the statutory remedies available under the Haryana
Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 as against those under the CP Act was
the matter in issue.
21. It has consistently been held by this Court that the remedies D
available under the provisions of the CP Act are additional remedies
over and above the other remedies including those made available under
any special statutes; and that the availability of an alternate remedy is no
bar in entertaining a complaint under the CP Act.
22. Before we consider whether the provisions of the RERA Act E
have made any change in the legal position stated in the preceding
paragraph, we may note that an allottee placed in circumstances similar
to that of the Complainants, could have initiated following proceedings
before the RERA Act came into force.
A) If he satisfied the requirements of being a “consumer” under F
the CP Act, he could have initiated proceedings under the
CP Act in addition to normal civil remedies.
B) However, if he did not fulfil the requirements of being a
“consumer”, he could initiate and avail only normal civil
remedies.
G
C) If the agreement with the developer or the builder provided
for arbitration:-
*(2007) 4 SCC 579
*(1996) 6 SCC 385
*(2000) 5 SCC 294
*(2011) 10 SCC 316 H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A i) in cases covered under Clause ‘B’ hereinabove, he could
initiate or could be called upon to invoke the remedies in
arbitration.
ii) in cases covered under Clause ‘A’ hereinabove, in
accordance with law laid down in Emaar MGF Ltd
B and anr. Vs. Aftab Singh*, he could still choose to
proceed under the CP Act.
23. In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to
complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment duly completed
by the date specified in the agreement, the Promoter would be liable, on
C demand, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment
if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the Project. Such right of an
allottee is specifically made “without prejudice to any other remedy
available to him”. The right so given to the allottee is unqualified and if
availed, the money deposited by the allottee has to be refunded with
interest at such rate as may be prescribed. The proviso to Section 18(1)
D contemplates a situation where the allottee does not intend to withdraw
from the Project. In that case he is entitled to and must be paid interest
for every month of delay till the handing over of the possession. It is
upto the allottee to proceed either under Section 18(1) or under proviso
to Section 18(1). The case of Himanshu Giri came under the latter
E category. The RERA Act thus definitely provides a remedy to an allottee
who wishes to withdraw from the Project or claim return on his
investment.
24. It is, therefore, required to be considered whether the remedy
so provided under the RERA Act to an allottee is the only and exclusive
F modality to raise a grievance and whether the provisions of the RERA
Act bar consideration of the grievance of an allottee by other fora.
25. Section 79 of the RERA Act bars jurisdiction of a Civil Court
to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the
Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is
empowered under the RERA Act to determine. Section 88 specifies
G
that the provisions of 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.
H *(2019) 12 SCC 751
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 407
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

26. On plain reading of Section 79 of the RERA Act, an allottee A
described in category (B) stated in paragraph 22 hereinabove, would
stand barred from invoking the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. However,
as regards the allottees who can be called “consumers” within the
meaning of the CP Act, two questions would arise; a) whether the bar
specified under Section 79 of the RERA Act would apply to proceedings
B
initiated under the provisions of the CP Act; and b) whether there is
anything inconsistent in the provisions of the CP Act with that of the
RERA Act.
27. In Malay Kumar Ganguli vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee*, it
was held by this Court:-
C
“The proceedings before the National Commission are although
judicial proceedings, but at the same time it is not a civil court
within the meaning of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It may have all the trappings of the civil court but yet it cannot be
called a civil court. (See Bharat Bank Ltd. V. Employees* and
Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai D
Banking Corpn*.
On the strength of the law so declared, Section 79 of the RERA
Act does not in any way bar the Commission or Forum under the
provisions of the CP Act to entertain any complaint.
E
28. Proviso to Section 71(1) of the RERA Act 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 proviso thus
gives a right or an option to the concerned complainant but does not F
statutorily force him to withdraw such complaint nor do the provisions of
the RERA Act create any mechanism for transfer of such pending
proceedings to authorities under the RERA Act. As against that the
mandate in Section 12(4) of the CP Act to the contrary is quite significant.
Again, insofar as cases where such proceedings under the CP G
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
*(2009) 9 SCC 221
*AIR 1950 SC 188 : 1950 SCR 459
*(2009) 6 SCC 635 H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A of bar under Section 79 to the initiation of proceedings before a fora
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”. Thus, the parliamentary intent is clear
that a choice or discretion is given to the allottee whether he wishes to
B
initiate appropriate proceedings under the CP Act or file an application
under the RERA Act.
29. It was, however, urged that going by the objective or the
purpose for which the RERA Act was enacted and considering the
special expertise and the qualifications of the Chairpersons and Members
C of the Authority (Section 22) and the Appellate Tribunal (Section 46),
such authorities alone must be held entitled to decide all issues concerning
the Project registered under the RERA Act. It was submitted that if the
allottees were to be permitted to initiate parallel proceedings before the
fora under the CP Act, the financial drain on the promoter would render
D completion of construction an impossibility and, therefore, the RERA
Act in general and Section 89 in particular be construed in such a way
that all the issues pertaining to the concerned project be decided only by
the authorities under the RERA Act. Even with acceptance of such
interpretation, the allottees would still be entitled to approach the
authorities under Section 18 of the RERA Act.
E
30. It is true that some special authorities are created under the
RERA Act for the regulation and promotion of the real estate sector and
the issues concerning a registered project are specifically entrusted to
functionaries under the RERA Act. But for the present purposes, we
must go by the purport of Section 18 of the RERA Act. Since it gives a
F right “without prejudice to any other remedy available’, in effect, such
other remedy is acknowledged and saved subject always to the
applicability of Section 79.
31. At this stage, we may profitably refer to the decision in Pioneer
Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited and another vs. Union of
G India and another*, where a bench of three Judges of this Court was
called upon to consider the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016, RERA Act and other legislations including the provisions of
the CP Act. One of the conclusions arrived at by this Court was:-

*(2019) 8 SCC 416
H
M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI AND 409
ANOTHER [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

“100. RERA is to be read harmoniously with the Code, as A
amended by the Amendment Act. It is only in the event of conflict
that the Code will prevail over RERA. Remedies that are given to
allottees of flats/apartments are therefore concurrent remedies,
such allottees of flats/apartments being in a position to avail of
remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, RERA as
B
well as the triggering of the Code.”
32. We, therefore, reject the submissions advanced by the Appellant
and answer the questions raised in paragraph 26 hereinabove against
the Appellant.
33. We may now consider the effect of the registration of the C
Project under the RERA Act. In the present case the apartments were
booked by the Complainants in 2011-2012 and the Builder Buyer
Agreements were entered into in November, 2013. As promised, the
construction should have been completed in 42 months. The period had
expired well before the Project was registered under the provisions of
the RERA Act. Merely because the registration under the RERA Act D
is valid till 31.12.2020 does not mean that the entitlement of the concerned
allottees to maintain an action stands deferred. It is relevant to note that
even for the purposes of Section 18, the period has to be reckoned in
terms of the agreement and not the registration. Condition no. (x) of the
letter dated 17.11.2017 also entitles an allottee in same fashion. E
Therefore, the entitlement of the Complainants must be considered in
the light of the terms of the Builder Buyer Agreements and was rightly
dealt with by the Commission.
34. Lastly, it may be noted that the Consumer Protection Act,
2019* (hereinafter referred as, “2019 Act”) was enacted by the F
Parliament “to provide for protection of the interests of consumers
and for the said purpose, to establish authorities for timely and
effectively administration and settlement of the consumers’ dispute
and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. Sections
2(7), 2(33), 2(37), and 2(42) define expressions “Consumer”, “Product”,
“Product Seller” and “Service” respectively. Sections 85 and 86 deal G
with liability of “Product Service Provider” and “Product Seller”. Sections
100 and 107 of 2019 Act are to the following effect:-

* Most of the provisions in Chapters I, II, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII including Sections 100
and 107 were brought into force w.e.f. 27.07.2020 vide Notification dated 15.07.2020 H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R.

A “100. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in
derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in
force.
107. (1) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken
B or purported to have been done or taken under the Act hereby
repealed shall, in so far as it Is not inconsistent with the provisions
of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the
corresponding provisions of this Act.
(3) The mention of particular matters in sub-section (2) shall not
C be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6
of the General Clauses Act, 1897 with regard to the effect of
repeal.”
Section 100 of 2019 Act is akin to Section 3 of the CP Act and
Section 107 saves all actions taken or purported to have been taken
D under the CP Act. It is significant that Section 100 is enacted with an
intent to secure the remedies under 2019 Act dealing with protection of
the interests of Consumers, even after the RERA Act was brought into
force.
Thus, the proceedings initiated by the complainants in the present
E cases and the resultant actions including the orders passed by the
Commission are fully saved.
35. Resultantly, we reject all the submissions advanced by the
Appellant. These appeals are accordingly dismissed affirming the view
taken by the Commission. We quantify the costs at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
F Fifty Thousand only) to be paid by the Appellant in respect of each of
the Consumer Cases, over and above the amounts directed to be made
over to the Complainants and shall form part of the amount payable by
the Appellant to the Complainants.
36. All the Complainants are entitled to execute the orders passed
G by the Commission in their favour, in accordance with law.

Ankit Gyan Appeals dismissed.

H