1. Appeals against National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission orders regarding promoter liability for failure to deliver apartment possession under the RERA Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 797
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
M/s. Imperia Structure Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Brig. Harit Pant – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 1816, 1899-1906 of 2022
Decided On : 28-03-2022
Important Points
The RERA Act provides a remedy to an allottee who wishes to withdraw from a project or claim return on investment, as upheld by the court in Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni and Another, (2020) 10 SCC 783.
Subject
Consumer Law - Consumer Dispute
Act Referred
Headnote
RERA Act - Consumer Dispute - The court relied on the decision in Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni and Another, (2020) 10 SCC 783, to uphold the rights of an allottee under Section 18 of the RERA Act, providing a remedy for withdrawal from a project or claiming return on investment.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a judgment by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in multiple consumer cases. The National Commission relied on the decision in Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni and Another, (2020) 10 SCC 783.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeals, stating that since the National Commission followed the decision in Imperia Structures Ltd., there was no reason to entertain the appeals. No costs were awarded.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the rights of an allottee under Section 18 of the RERA Act, providing a remedy for withdrawal from a project or claiming return on investment, as per the decision in Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni and Another, (2020) 10 SCC 783.
Final Decision: The Civil Appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms. Pinaki Misra, Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Mr. Amit Agarwal, Ms. Kanika Gomber, Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Mr. S. Anjani Kumar, Mr. Navin Kumar Sehrawat, Mr. Vishnu Kant.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Mr. Prabhash Malik, Ms. Aarthi Rajan, Ms. Aarthi Rajan.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms. Pinaki Misra, Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Mr. Amit Agarwal, Ms. Kanika Gomber, Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Mr. S. Anjani Kumar, Mr. Navin Kumar Sehrawat, Mr. Vishnu Kant.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Mr. Prabhash Malik, Ms. Aarthi Rajan, Ms. Aarthi Rajan.
Table of Contents
2. The court declined to entertain the appeals as the National Commission's decision adhered to established Supreme Court precedent regarding the RERA Act. (Para 3 )
3. Under Section 18 of the RERA Act, allottees are entitled to either a refund with interest upon withdrawal or interest for delay until possession. (Para 2 )
4. The civil appeals were dismissed. (Para 4 )
5. What remedies are available to an allottee under Section 18 of the RERA Act if a promoter fails to deliver possession?
An allottee may either withdraw from the project and demand a refund of the amount deposited with prescribed interest, or choose to remain in the project and receive interest for every month of delay until possession is handed over. (Para 2 )
6. Does the right to a refund under Section 18 of the RERA Act preclude other legal remedies?
No, the right of an allottee to withdraw from a project and receive a refund under Section 18 is specifically provided without prejudice to any other remedy available to them. (Para 2 )
ORDER :
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (“the National Commission” for short) in Consumer Case No. 1043 of 2018.
2. The National Commission in paragraph 10 of its judgment relied upon the decision of this Court in Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni and Another, (2020) 10 SCC 783. Paragraph 25 of the decision in Imperia Structures Ltd. (supra) was as under:
“25. In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment duly completed by the date specified in the agreement, the promoter would be liable, on demand, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the Project. Such right of an allottee is specifically made “without prejudice to any other remedy available to him.” The right so given to the allottee is unqualified and if availed, the money deposited by the allottee has to be refunded with interest at such rate as may be prescribed. The proviso to Section 18(1) contemplates a situation where the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the Project. In that case he is entitled to and must be paid interest for every month of delay till the handing over of the possession. It is up to the allottee to proceed either under Section 18(1) or under proviso to Section 18(1). The case of Himanshu Giri came under the latter category. The RERA Act thus definitely provides a remedy to an allottee who wishes to withdraw from the Project or claim return on his investment.”
3. Since the National Commission has followed the decision of this Court in Imperia Structures Ltd. (supra), we see no reason to entertain this appeal.
4. The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1899-1906 of 2022
1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (“the National Commission” for short) in Consumer Case Nos. 1044 of 2018, 1045 of 2018, 1046 of 2018, 1047 of 2018, 1048 of 2018, 1190 of 2018, 1191 of 2018 and 2590 of 2018.
2. The National Commission in paragraph 10 of its judgment relied upon the decision of this Court in Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni and Another, (2020) 10 SCC 783. Paragraph 25 of the decision in Imperia Structures Ltd. (supra) was as under:
“25. In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment duly completed by the date specified in the agreement, the promoter would be liable, on demand, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the Project. Such right of an allottee is specifically made “without prejudice to any other remedy available to him.” The right so given to the allottee is unqualified and if availed, the money deposited by the allottee has to be refunded with interest at such rate as may be prescribed. The proviso to Section 18(1) contemplates a situation where the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the Project. In that case he is entitled to and must be paid interest for every month of delay till the handing over of the possession. It is up to the allottee to proceed either under Section 18(1) or under proviso to Section 18(1). The case of Himanshu Giri came under the latter category. The RERA Act thus definitely provides a remedy to an allottee who wishes to withdraw from the Project or claim return on his investment.”
3. Since the National Commission has followed the decision of this Court in Imperia Structures Ltd. (supra), we see no reason to entertain these appeals.
4. The Civil Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. No Costs.
