Supreme Court: Homebuyers Cannot Approach Consumer Forum After Choosing RERA Remedy

The Supreme Court has held that when two concurrent remedies are available to an aggrieved party, the party must elect one and cannot subsequently pursue the other for the same cause of action.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by M/s Kabra and Associates against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dated August 23, 2023.

The NCDRC had held that a complaint filed by the homebuyers was maintainable before the consumer forum and rejected the preliminary objection raised by the developer.

The dispute arose when complainants Rekha and Raj Kumar Hemadev approached the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) against developer M/s Kabra and Associates. They alleged that the developer had failed to register the building, in which they had purchased flats, as an ongoing project under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

The complainants also filed another complaint before the Authority under Section 18 of the Act seeking refund of the amounts paid for the flats.

Their earlier complaint was disposed of by the Authority on May 14, 2019, holding that the developer was not mandatorily required to register the project under Section 3 of the RERA Act.

The Supreme Court noted that irrespective of whether the Authority’s order was legally correct, it had attained finality and was binding between the parties.

Subsequently, the complainants sought to withdraw their second complaint before the Authority. They submitted a letter dated February 15, 2019 stating that a different project had been mentioned by mistake in the complaint.

During the hearing, the complainants informed the Authority that they intended to file a fresh complaint because the project in question was unregistered and therefore they believed relief could not be granted under the RERA Act.

The Authority recorded that the project name had been incorrectly mentioned as “Kabra Auram” instead of “Kabra Vihang”. On this basis, the Authority observed that no remedy could be granted in that complaint.

The complainants withdrew the complaint with liberty to file a fresh complaint before the Authority. However, they did not pursue the matter before the RERA Authority for several years.

Instead, in 2022 they filed a complaint before the NCDRC under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Supreme Court examined the sequence of events and held that the complainants had consciously chosen to invoke the remedy available under the RERA Act in the first instance.

The bench stated that once the complainants had committed themselves to that remedy and withdrawn their complaint before the Authority with liberty to file a fresh complaint there, they could not subsequently opt for another remedy before the consumer forum.

The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited v. Abhishek Khanna (2021), where it held that the doctrine of election of remedies applies when two concurrent remedies are available. Once a party chooses to pursue one remedy, the party cannot simultaneously or subsequently pursue the other for the same cause of action.

Applying this principle, the Court held that the complainants could not maintain a complaint before the consumer forum after having elected to proceed under the RERA framework.

The Court also observed that the developer could not rely on the lack of registration of the project as a ground to deny relief before the RERA Authority if proceedings were pursued there.

It clarified that the absence of project registration does not defeat the Authority’s jurisdiction to examine complaints under the provisions of the RERA Act.

While making this observation, the Court stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the delay between 2019 and 2022 in pursuing the dispute.

In view of its findings, the Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order which had held the consumer complaint to be maintainable.

Case Title: M/s Kabra And Associates & Ors Vs Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev & Ors

Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran

Date of Judgment: February 4, 2026