Read Time: 08 minutes

The Supreme Court has reiterated that Consumer Protection Act and the RERA Act neither exclude nor contradict each other. In fact, they are concurrent remedies operating independently and without primacy, added the top Court

"When Statutes provisioning judicial remedies fall for construction, the choice of the interpretative outcomes should also depend on the constitutional duty to create effective judicial remedies in furtherance of access to justice. A meaningful interpretation that effectuates access to justice is a constitutional imperative and it is this duty that must inform the interpretative criterion.", observed a bench of Justices 

The bench was further of the view that if Statutes provide more than one judicial fora for effectuating a right or to enforce a duty-obligation, it is a feature of remedial choices offered by the State for an effective access to justice.

Therefore, while interpreting statutes provisioning plurality of remedies, it is necessary for Courts to harmonise the provisions in a constructive manner, it added.

Reliance was placed on the case of Pioneer Urban Land Infrastructure Ltd v. Union of India where the Court was called upon to consider the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the RERA Act, 2016 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,

“....RERA is to be read harmoniously with the Code, as 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 well as the triggering of the Code.”

An appeal was filed by Experion Developers under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1981 , assailing judgment passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wherein it directed the Developer to refund an amount of Rs. 2,06,41,379 with interest @ 9% p.a. to the Respondent-Consumer Sushma Ashok Siroor, for its failure to deliver possession of the apartment within the time stipulated as per the Apartment Buyers Agreement.

The top court upheld the Commission’s order insofar as it directed the Developer to refund the amounts paid by the Consumer with interest for the unjustifiable delay in delivering the apartment.

Assailing the NCDRC judgment, the Developer argued before the top court that since the Consumer elected to proceed under the  Consumer Protection Act, the provisions of the RERA Act will have no application.

Noting that this question was no more res integra, the bench relied on Imperia Structures Ltd v. Anil Patni, wherein Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, examined the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums vis-a-vis the specific remedies created under the RERA Act and noted all aspects of parallel remedies available to the consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the RERA Act, 2016.

The top court has further clarified that the power to direct refund of the amount and to compensate a consumer for the deficiency in not delivering the apartment as per the terms of Agreement is within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts as per Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Furthermore, the consumer's prayer that the payment of interest must be from the date of payment of each instalment also came to be allowed by the Court.

"...the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts. The Commission in the order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit. We find that this does not amount to restitution", said the bench.

Thus, while dismissing the appeal filed by the developers, the court ordered for interests to be payable from the dates of deposits made by consumer.

Case Title: EXPERION DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. vs. SUSHMA ASHOK SHIROOR