WEATHER HOME BUYERS CAN HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION UNDER RERA, 2016 AND COPRA 2019

Section 3 of COPRA ,2019 reads as :

?―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.

In Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (dead) through LRs and others[1],? this Court held that

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 aims to provide better protection for consumers by establishing quasi-judicial forums at different levels. These forums have wide-ranging powers to grant relief, award compensation, and impose penalties. The Act operates in addition to other existing laws, and its provisions should be interpreted broadly to extend jurisdiction, especially when offering remedies beyond those available under other Acts unless explicitly prohibited.

Related provisions for RERA

Section 88 RERA. 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 force.

Section 79. RERA 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 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.

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,—

(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 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 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 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 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, in the manner as provided under this Act.

In a recent judgment delivered by this Court in M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni and Anr[2],? it was held that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act were in addition to the remedies available under special statutes. The absence of a bar under Section 79 of the RERA Act to the initiation of proceedings before a forum which is not a civil court, read with Section 88 of the RERA Act makes the position clear. Section 18 of the RERA Act specifies that the remedies are ―without prejudice to any other remedy available. We place reliance on this judgment, wherein it has been held that :

“31. 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 complainant concerned but does not 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.

32. 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 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 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 CP Act or file an application under the RERA Act.

?

Hence, the RERA Act allows complainants who initiated proceedings under the CP Act before the RERA Act came into force to withdraw those proceedings and file an application under the RERA Act. However, there is no statutory obligation to withdraw such complaints, and the RERA Act does not provide a mechanism for transferring pending proceedings to RERA authorities. The choice lies with the allottee to proceed under the CP Act or file an application under the RERA Act.

?

?

?

?

[1] (2004) 1 SCC 305.

[2] 2020) 10 SCC 783.