Consumer Complaint Dismissed Due to Res Judicata: Prior RERA Order Bars Redressal for Same Grievance - 2025-04-17

Reliable Legal Information.

Consumer Commission Dismisses Homebuyers' Complaint Citing Prior RERA Decision

New Delhi, India – The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed a consumer complaint filed by Samit Sakharam Raut and another against Incline Realty Private Limited, citing the legal principle of res judicata . The Commission, presided over by Justice SudipAhluwalia , ruled that the complainants were barred from re-litigating the same grievances that had already been addressed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority ( RERA ).

Background of the Case

The complainants had initially booked a residential unit in Incline Realty’s “Sky City” project in 2015, paying a booking amount of Rs. 35,00,000. They sought a refund of their deposited amount, alleging deficiency in service due to project delays and changes in the payment schedule. Prior to approaching the NCDRC, the homebuyers had filed multiple complaints with the Maharashtra RERA regarding the same project, seeking various reliefs including execution of an agreement and, in the alternative, a refund.

Arguments Presented

Complainants' Arguments:

Represented by Ms. Ishita Singh, Advocate, the complainants argued that their consumer complaint was maintainable as RERA had not fully adjudicated on the issues of project delay, arbitrary payment demands, and failure to obtain an Occupancy Certificate. They contended that RERA 's orders primarily focused on the execution of the Agreement for Sale and did not address the core deficiency in service. The complainants further questioned the competency of the RERA authority that passed the initial orders, suggesting the Chairperson was not a qualified adjudicating officer under Section 71 of the RERA Act.

Opposite Party's Arguments:

Represented by Mr. Jatin Mongia, Advocate, Incline Realty countered that the complaint was barred by res judicata , forum shopping, and limitation. They highlighted that the complainants had previously filed and pursued similar grievances before RERA , seeking refunds and related reliefs. RERA had directed the execution of the Agreement for Sale and set a possession date. The developer argued that these RERA orders were final and binding as they were not challenged. They emphasized that the current consumer complaint was an attempt to re-adjudicate matters already decided by a competent authority.

Court's Reasoning and Application of Res Judicata

Justice Ahluwalia , presiding over the NCDRC, meticulously reviewed the history of the case, including the previous RERA proceedings. The Commission noted that the complainants had indeed sought a refund as an alternative relief in their RERA Complaint No. CC006000000023534 and subsequently, refund and compensation as primary reliefs in Complaint No. CC006000000089995 before the Maharashtra RERA .

The judgment emphasized that the core principle of res judicata prevents the re-adjudication of issues already decided by a competent court or authority. The Commission cited landmark judgments, including Daryao & Ors. v. State of U.P. , which underscores the public policy behind res judicata in ensuring finality in litigation and preventing repetitive disputes.

The NCDRC also referred to Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna & Ors. , where the Supreme Court clarified that while consumers have a choice of forums ( RERA or Consumer Fora ), they cannot pursue multiple remedies for the same cause of action. The court observed that although Consumer Fora and RERA have concurrent jurisdiction, the complainants in this case were essentially seeking a second bite at the cherry for the same grievance after RERA had already passed orders.

Regarding the complainants' challenge to the RERA authority's competency, the Commission found insufficient evidence or elaboration to substantiate the claim that the Chairperson was not qualified to act as an adjudicating officer under Section 71 of the RERA Act. Justice Ahluwalia pointed out that the burden was on the complainants to provide specific details and proof of this alleged incompetence, which they failed to do.

Pivotal Excerpt from the Judgment:

> "In such circumstances, this Commission has no scope to disregard the effect of the final Order passed by the Mah RERA , as applicable in the present case, assuming that the sad Authority was otherwise possessed of proper jurisdiction and competency to pass such Order."

Decision and Implications

Ultimately, the NCDRC dismissed the consumer complaint as being barred by res judicata . However, acknowledging the complainants' concerns regarding the RERA authority's competence, the Commission granted them liberty to pursue their remedies in other appropriate forums, should they be able to substantiate their claim of the RERA authority's lack of competence.

Final Verdict: The Consumer Complaint was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata , with parties bearing their own costs. This judgment reinforces the importance of finality in legal proceedings and highlights that while alternative legal avenues may exist, re-litigating decided matters in different forums is generally not permissible.

---

Case Details:

Case Title: SAMIT SAKHARAM RAUT & ANR. Versus INCLINE REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED

Court: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi

Complaint Number: NC/CC/422/2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA , PRESIDING MEMBER

Date of Decision: 19/03/2025

For Complainant: MS. ISHITA SINGH , ADVOCATE

For Opposite Party: MR. JATIN MONGIA , ADVOCATE