Back
NCDRC Dismisses Homebuyers' Plea for Refund Already Granted by Karnataka RERA citing
The , New Delhi, has declined to entertain a consumer complaint filed by a couple who had already secured a refund order from the for a delayed apartment project.
The bench, comprising President Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya, held that entertaining the complaint would result in and , attracting the . The Commission observed that the principal relief sought—a refund of ₹2,13,08,983—was the same as that already granted by K-RERA in .
A Tale of Two Forums: The Refund Already Won
The complainants, Nikhil Mehta and his wife, had booked an apartment in the residential project “Mantri Blossom”, originally developed by (now ) in Bengaluru. They paid the full consideration in but the developer failed to deliver possession within the stipulated period. In , the homebuyers approached K-RERA, which on directed the builder to refund the entire amount with interest.
Instead of merely enforcing that order, the couple approached the NCDRC in , alleging that subsequent events —including the project being taken over under the in and allegedly unlawful demands raised in —constituted a and an . They sought the same refund with 21% interest, compensation, and exemplary damages.
The Strikes Again
The NCDRC noted that , allows consumers to avail remedies under the Act in addition to other laws. However, the ’s recent ruling in Mansi Brar Fernandes vs. Shubha Sharma & Anr. (2025) clarified that consumer forums should ‘confine themselves to adjudicating individual service deficiencies, thereby avoiding conflicting or overlapping orders across multiple fora.’
The Commission found that the complainants had already elected to approach K-RERA and obtained a favourable order for the exact same refund. Merely adding heads of compensation, the bench observed, would not change the nature of the dispute. “When once the very same subject matter of refund … has been adjudicated and the matter is pending enforcement before the RERA Authority, it will not be appropriate for this Commission to entertain the same prayer,” the order states.
What the Said in Mansi Brar Fernandes
In a critical extract from the ’s Mansi Brar Fernandes judgment (paragraph 15.2), the Apex Court laid down that:
“The RERA remains the primary forum for redressal of homebuyers' grievances; … Consumer forums should confine themselves to adjudicating individual service deficiencies, thereby avoiding conflicting or overlapping orders across multiple fora.”
This principle, the NCDRC held, applies squarely to the present case. Even though the complainants argued that the RERA order remained unenforced, the Commission reasoned that enforcement is a matter for the RERA Authority and does not justify a fresh proceeding before a parallel forum.
The Final Verdict: Consigned
The NCDRC dismissed the complaint but to the complainants’ right to enforce the existing K-RERA order or to seek any further remedy available under law, as observed by the in and .
The Commission emphasised that allowing the consumer complaint would amount to a and would also offend the , as explained in and
Case Title: Nikhil Mehta & Anr. v. & Ors. | Case No.: NC/CC/83/
