Consumer Rights in Real Estate: Imperia Structure Ltd. vs. Homebuyers

The case of M/s. Imperia Structure Ltd. vs. Brig. Harit Pant and other connected appeals revolves around a crucial issue in the real estate sector: the rights of homebuyers under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Supreme Court’s decision in this matter underscores the liability of real estate developers when they fail to deliver possession of apartments within the agreed timeframe.

The appeals arose from judgments issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), where homebuyers had sought relief due to delays in project completion. The NCDRC ruled in favor of the consumers, prompting the real estate developer, Imperia Structure Ltd., to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.

Background of the Case

In the present matter, the homebuyers had booked apartments with Imperia Structure Ltd., a real estate developer, and had been assured of possession within a stipulated time. However, the projects faced significant delays, leading the buyers to approach the NCDRC under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking refunds with interest.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/legal-implications-of-property-ownership-and-limitation-supreme-court-ruling-in-saranpal-kaur-anand-vs-praduman-singh-chandhok/

The NCDRC, in its ruling, relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni & Another (2020) 10 SCC 783. In that case, the Court had held that a homebuyer is entitled to a refund under Section 18 of the RERA Act if possession is not handed over within the specified period. The provision allows buyers to claim a refund with interest or opt to continue with the project while receiving monthly compensation.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Imperia Structure Ltd.)

• The appellant, Imperia Structure Ltd., argued that the homebuyers had an alternative remedy under RERA and should not have approached the NCDRC.
• They contended that once a homebuyer has initiated proceedings under RERA, they cannot simultaneously seek relief under the Consumer Protection Act.
• The developer also argued that project delays were due to unforeseen circumstances and should not be attributed to deliberate wrongdoing.

Respondent’s Arguments (Homebuyers)

• The homebuyers countered that RERA does not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission.
• They relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni, which had affirmed that the remedies under RERA are in addition to those available under consumer protection laws.
• They asserted that the developer had made false promises regarding project completion and failed to refund their hard-earned money.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, upheld the NCDRC’s order and dismissed the appeals filed by Imperia Structure Ltd.

The Court noted that the NCDRC had merely followed the precedent set in the Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni case. Quoting from that ruling, the Court reaffirmed:

“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’.”

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/stamp-duty-on-court-supervised-auction-sales-supreme-court-dismisses-appeal/

Since the NCDRC’s decision was in line with this precedent, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it without costs.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that RERA does not bar consumers from approaching the NCDRC.
• Homebuyers have the right to claim a refund with interest if the developer fails to deliver the apartment on time.
• The ruling strengthens consumer rights by ensuring that multiple legal remedies remain available.

Implications for Homebuyers and Real Estate Developers

This ruling is a significant win for homebuyers across India. It confirms that even if a homebuyer has registered under RERA, they can still seek relief under consumer protection laws. Developers must now be more accountable and transparent in their dealings, as failing to meet promised deadlines can result in legal consequences.

For real estate developers, this judgment reinforces the necessity of adhering to project deadlines and providing refunds where applicable. The decision ensures that homebuyers are not left without recourse when facing unreasonable delays.

Overall, the Supreme Court’s verdict strengthens consumer protection in the real estate sector and ensures that the interests of homebuyers remain safeguarded against delays and unfair practices.

Petitioner Name: M/s. Imperia Structure Ltd..
Respondent Name: Brig. Harit Pant.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi.
Judgment Date: 28-03-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: ms.-imperia-structu-vs-brig.-harit-pant-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-28-03-2022.pdf