Consumer Commission jurisdiction not ‘driven out’ by RERA: High Court
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, May 6
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today ruled that the jurisdiction of a Consumer Commission under the Consumer Protection Act was not driven out with promulgation of the ‘RERA’ Act. As such, its orders could not be declared nullity and non-est.
The ruling by Justice Lisa Gill through video-conferencing came on a petition filed by Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Private Limited against the Punjab State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and other respondents.
The petitioner had challenged two orders passed by the Commission on a complaint filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act for refund of Rs 18, 11,578, along with 18 per cent per annum interest and compensation.
It was alleged in the complaint that the builder had come up with the project at Kharar-Landran road in Mohali district and had offered units/shops for sale. Possession of the unit was to be delivered within three years from booking/allotment. But the petitioner allegedly failed to handover the possession within the stipulated period. Rather, development work was not carried out by the petitioner at the site.
The Commission held that the complainants were entitled to the refund of the amount deposited, along with 12 per cent per annum interest and Rs 50,000 compensation. Challenging the order before the High Court, the petitioner’s counsel the Commission lacked authority or jurisdiction to take cognisance of any matter covered under the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, which was a complete code in itself. It was “vehemently” argued that ‘RERA’ was a comprehensive enactment complete in itself and it dealt with all the disputes which may arise between a developer and the allottee.
Justice Gill asserted there was no dispute that the ‘RERA’ was a complete code in itself. A regulatory authority had been set up for regulation and promotion of the real estate sector and to ensure sale of plots, apartments etc., in an efficient and transparent manner, besides protecting the interest of the consumers and to further establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal.
An appellate tribunal had also been established for hearing appeals from the decisions, directions and orders of the regulatory authority. But Section 88 of ‘RERA’ specified that the provisions of the Act were not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
Justice Gill added counsel for the petitioner was unable to deny that the Supreme Court in “Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd and another versus the Union of India and others” specifically held that the remedies afforded to the allottees of plots/apartments etc., under various statutes were concurrent remedies. The allottees were in a position to avail their remedies under the CP Act, RERA as well as the Bankruptcy Code.
