M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LIMITED Vs. ANIL PATNI AND ANOTHER, Civil Appeal No. 3581-3590 of 2020, Decided on : 02-11-2020

Issues Raised – the problems or questions brought before the court.

1. • Consumer Status: The construction company (Appellant, M/s. Imperia Structures Ltd.) argued that the buyers (Complainants) were not true “consumers” because they booked the apartments purely for investment or profit, not for self-use.

1. • Delay Justification: The company claimed that the construction delay was unavoidable due to major events like the government’s demonetization policy, shortage of contractual labor, and delays in obtaining necessary government permissions (known as Force Majeure).

1. • Jurisdiction Conflict: The main argument was that after the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA Act) came into force and the project was registered under it, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (the consumer court) lost the authority to hear the complaints.

1. • Remedy Sought: The company requested that the orders directing them to refund the money be canceled, and instead, they should only be required to pay delay interest at the rate prescribed by RERA (10.75% per annum) until possession is handed over.

1. • RERA Registration Date: The company argued that since their RERA registration was valid until December 31, 2020, they should not be considered in delay.

Issues Framed – the main questions the court decided to examine.

1. • Did the buyers qualify as “Consumers” under the Consumer Protection Act (CP Act), and was the construction company actually deficient in service by failing to deliver the project on time?.

1. • Does the RERA Act, 2016, specifically the provision that bars Civil Courts (Section 79), also prevent the Consumer Commission from taking up or continuing to hear complaints from homebuyers?.

1. • Does the RERA Act override the CP Act, or do consumers have the option to pursue remedies under both laws simultaneously?.

1. • If the project has registered a new completion deadline under RERA, does that deadline replace the original date promised in the builder-buyer agreement?.

Observations on Issues Framed – what the court noticed or said on each issue.

• • Consumer Status and Delay Confirmed: The court confirmed that the complainants were indeed “Consumers” (many had taken home loans for self-use). The court also upheld the finding that the company was deficient in rendering service due to the long delay in construction.

• • Rejection of Delay Excuses: The company’s reasons for delay, such as demonetization and labor shortage, were rejected and do not count as force majeure (unavoidable disaster).

• • Consumer Court is Not a Civil Court: The RERA Act’s section that bars jurisdiction (Section 79) applies only to “Civil Courts”. The Consumer Commission is not considered a Civil Court, so the RERA bar does not apply to it.

• • Concurrent Remedies Allowed: The RERA Act itself specifies that the remedy it offers (Section 18, dealing with refunds or interest) is “without prejudice to any other remedy available” to the buyer. This means the buyer retains the choice to pursue a remedy under the CP Act or the RERA Act.

• • CP Act is an Additional Law: The CP Act (Section 3) and the RERA Act (Section 88) both state that their provisions are “in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law”. This clearly establishes that the laws work together.

• • RERA Date vs. Agreement Date: The new completion date registered under RERA (valid until 2020) does not erase the builder’s failure to meet the original deadline set in the 2013 buyer agreement. The buyer’s right to action starts from the date of delay as per the contract.

Sections Interpreted – the sections of law and Act names discussed by the court.

• • Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CP Act): Section 3 (Remedies are additional).

• • Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act): Section 18 (Allottee’s right to refund/compensation), Section 71(1) (Proviso regarding pending CP Act complaints), Section 79 (Bar of jurisdiction for Civil Courts), Section 88 (Application of other laws not barred).

• • Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (2019 Act): Section 100 (Act is in addition to other laws).

Law Settled – the legal rule or principle made clear by the court.

1. • Concurrent Jurisdiction: Homebuyers have concurrent remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act (CP Act) and the RERA Act. They are free to choose which forum they wish to approach.

1. • No Bar on Consumer Forums: The statutory prohibition on filing suits in Civil Courts under RERA (Section 79) does not apply to the quasi-judicial Consumer Forums (Commissions).

1. • Right to Withdraw: Since the RERA Act’s remedies are “without prejudice to any other remedy available” (Section 18), the existence of RERA does not compel a homebuyer to abandon a complaint filed under the CP Act.

1. • Contract Date Governs Delay: The actual delay calculation must be based on the completion date promised in the original builder-buyer agreement, not a later date registered under RERA.

Judgment / Directions (Conclusion) – the final order or directions of the court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the builder’s appeals and confirmed the orders of the Consumer Commission.

The developer (Imperia Structures Ltd.) must:

1. • Refund the entire amount paid by the complainants.

1. • Pay simple interest at 9% per annum on the refunded amount, calculated from the date of each deposit until the date the money is actually returned.

1. • Comply with this refund direction within four weeks.

1. • If the developer fails to pay within four weeks, the applicable interest rate will increase to 12% per annum for the period of delay.

1. • Pay an additional cost of Rs. 50,000/- to each complainant.

1. • The complainants are permitted to take legal steps to enforce these orders.