Can a Project Be RERA-Registered and Still Face Consumer Claims? Mapping the Overlap Between Regulatory Compliance and Consumer Forum Jurisdiction

Introduction : The Real Estate (Regulation and Development), Act,2016 was formulated with the aim of bringing in transparency, accountability and timely completion of projects which has not been achieved over the years because of delays in possession, misuse of funds and standard contracts. Hence, upon reading the provisions of RERA, the first conclusion that arises in the mind is that, on proper registration of the project with the authority, the developer is shielded from any litigation. However, this conclusion is not only wrong but also dangerous and misleading for the promoters who keep believing that this protection is absolute and infallible.

As a prerequisite for the sale of any unit in a real estate project, registration with RERA is a necessity. The registration with RERA, however, does not serve as a legal defense for buyers who wish either to approach the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms or the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“CPA”). The courts, in India, have held on several occasions that RERA and CPA offer simultaneous and concurrent remedies to the promoter as well as to the buyer, with RERA being the primary option. However, a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of India, M/s Kabra and Associates & Ors v. Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev & Ors (2026 LLBiz SC 109) delivered in March 2026, explicitly laid down a rider on the law, via pronouncing upon the doctrine of election of remedies that once the buyer chooses to approach the forum under the RERA Act, he cannot approach the consumer forum too in relation to the same issue. Thus, this article shall discuss some of these relevant provisions and the cases that provide support to the above-mentioned argument and some possible standpoints for allottees as well as for promoters.

Legal Provisions

Laws governing disputes related to homebuyers are not confined to one law but have spread out through many. It governs different aspects of consumer rights, regulation, and insolvency. RERA takes care of establishing a new code for verification of activities in the property sector, while CPA and IBC also work alongside. Thus, some of the most important provisions are as follows: 

Section 79 of RERA, 2016 clearly states that civil courts cannot take on any case brought before them that comes under the jurisdiction of authorities and adjudicating officers. 

At the same time, Section 88 of RERA, 2016 says that the provisions of RERA should be interpreted as the laws to be implemented in addition to any laws effective at present time. It preserves remedies available under other statutes, including the CPA.

The responsibilities of the parties such as the promoter are specified in Sections 12, 14, 18, and 19 of the RERA Act, 2016. These sections not only determine the liability of the promoters and also include the made available disclosures and commitments made by the promoter.

To enforce the rights specified above, Section 71 of the RERA Act, 2016 gives powers to the adjudicating officer to decide the issue of compensation and interest claim related to the above sections different from the jurisdiction conferred on the authority.

With respect to the appeal process Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, 2016, states that no appeal with the Tribunal shall be entertained unless the amount due is deposited by the promoter.

Besides the above provisions, Sections 2(7) and 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 establishes the definition of "consumer" and adds that the CPA is an additional law apart from other laws in the country and strengthens clause 12 of the RERA Act, 2016.

Section 34, 47 and 58 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 confer jurisdiction over monetary matters to the Consumer Disputes Resolution Commission at the state, district and national levels.

On the other hand, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016 has provided for a separate remedy through the introduction of Section 5(8)(f) which means that all amounts that are involved in real estate projects fall under the category of financial debt thereby treating home acquire as financial creditors.

Legal Analysis

RERA Registration is Regulatory Compliance, not a Litigation Shield

RERA registration is a promoter's responsibility to ensure that the regulatory authority gets all necessary information about the relevant construction project, including the timeframe and ownership details. However, this does not absolve the promoter from the responsibility of fulfilling all his obligations to the allottee of the project, with respect to timely hand-over of property in good and defect-free condition. Therefore, registration does not constitute a sufficient defence before the Authority, Adjudicating Officer or Consumer Forum in a case involving the inadequacy of service, defaults or misrepresentation.

Why Section 79 Does Not Oust Consumer Forum Jurisdiction

The issue being debated among lawmakers and jurists has been whether the exclusion of civil courts, as provided for under Section 79, should also be extended to the complaint forum for consumers. This reasoning has been dismissed by the courts that have frequently held that the National Commission, State Commissions, and District Councils that have been formed under CPA are not courts of law under Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When considered along with Section 88 of RERA and the savings clause included in Section 100 of the CPA, this leads to the definite conclusion that RERA is established not in lieu of but as an addition to the consumer protection law remedies.

‘Concurrent Remedies’ to ‘Election Remedies’- Doctrine Defined

The fundamental premise is that allottees possess simultaneous rights to remedy under the RERA, CPA and upon triggering the IBC, as may be applicable, and this has been rightly stated by the Supreme Court by interpreting these statutes harmoniously. But this does not imply that allottees could simultaneously approach more than one forum (or, in case RERA has decided on the particular cause of action) to litigate the cause of action in another forum. The judgment of 2026 lays down the principle of propriety that limits this. In this context, it can be emphasized that if an allottee chooses one of the remedies (in the exercise of his right to choose) to go before RERA, and takes actions reflecting at the same time his choice of remedy (like, for instance, withdrawing his concurrent complaint with permission to file it later in the relevant consumer forum) then the allottee will not be able to file a suit in the consumer forum either based on the same or on similar allegation, given that the cause of action has been already settled by RERA. This would ensure that there would be no duplicity of cases based on the same cause of action.

Registration Status is Not the Determinative Variable

One common mistake many people make while dealing with cases between the consumers is to think that jurisdiction is dependent on whether the project has been registered at time of cause of action arose or not. The Supreme Court has held that the fact that the project is not registered would not impact the authority's jurisdiction in adjudicating a case under RERA. The question is not whether a project has been registered, but (i) whether the complainant is a "consumer" as defined under CPA; (ii) what relief is sought; and (iii) if the same relief or cause of action had been brought to the notice of the other forum by the plaintiff earlier.

Case Laws

Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India, (2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9302)

The Bombay High Court confirmed the constitutional validity of the RERA, including the validity of the Act in respect of ongoing projects. It also confirmed specifically that the Act itself, i.e the registration and disclosure of the Act, and the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Authority can exist along with pre-existing statutory remedies without violating Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1020

The Supreme Court addressed several appeals dealing with refund requests in respect of properties not delivered and laid down the distribution of jurisdiction within the applicable provisions of RERA: requests for refunds and interests arise under Section 18 and fall within the jurisdiction of the Authority, while compensation requests under Section 12, 14, 18, and 19 fall within the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of RERA. The decision also reaffirmed the requirement of mandatory deposit as per Section 43(5) in cases when promoter lodges an appeal. Thus, it makes RERA a competent system of law where the promoter is liable.

Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.,(2019) 8 SCC 416

The Supreme Court, rejecting the dispute on the interpretation of the term "financial creditors" as per S.5(8)(f) of the IBC, has stated that RERA and the IBC operate in distinct fields and should be construed in conjunction with each other, with the IBC being applicable in case of inconsistency.

Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma & Anr.2025 INSC 1110.

Following on from Pioneer Urban Land, the Supreme Court clarified the aspects of the boundary of IBC and RERA remedies in case of stalled or insolvent projects by noting that the mere fact that default occurs, triggering an insolvency, does not mean that the allottee’s claims under the RERA or consumer forum concerning a project will necessarily go away. The same is to depend on the nature of relief sought by the allottee and the stage of proceedings.

M/s Kabra and Associates & Ors v. Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev & Ors ,2026 LLBiz SC 109

This is the most significant development on the present subject matter. Home-buyers who had purchased apartments in Mumbai and complained to Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) regarding the builder failing to provide possession on time had later withdrawn their complaint but maintained his rights to file the complaint again. It was at a later date that these home-buyers filed their complaint with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Sanjay Kumar ruled that where two remedies are available for a complainant, who has chosen one of the options, he would not be allowed to pursue the second remedy as well in respect of the same complaint. The court set aside the NCDRC’s ruling whereby the consumer complaint was allowed and held that nondisclosure of RERA registration of the project does not imply that the RERA Authority cannot decide the matters. These findings reveal that concurrence of remedies does not amounts to forum shopping.

Practical Implications

For Developers and Promoters

RERA registration does not mean risk management of litigation because developers should understand that no matter how compliant they are with RERA, they are still liable to face consumer complaints, RERA complaints, and insolvency petitions from consumers if they meet the required parameters of financial conditions. Good project management, good disclosures, and good service delivery within a time schedule are the best measures for risk management. Developers should also ask themselves how such complaints are made; if there are already consumers who have opted for RERA dispute resolution on similar grounds, then Kabra and Associates ruling should protect them against the consumer complaint.

For Homebuyers and Allotees

Forum selection has evolved into a tactical option in the majority of the cases. The process under RERA is usually quicker and more effective in the case of actions regarding possession, refunds, and interest at the statutory rate. Consumer forums have a possibility of claiming a lot of claims, including claims about mental agony and litigation fees and have a broader view of the definition of deficiency in service. Once the forum is chosen and the case is heard for some time, allottees should keep in mind that going to the new chosen forum for the same dispute will be considered as forum shopping and will lead to the other party proclaiming its objections to the suit. If it is planned to have all variants available, the way should be open by seeking the court's permission to withdraw the claim from the first court and resubmit it to another court; otherwise, the above-mentioned actions would lead to the court's objection to such forum shopping.

For Practitioner- Strategic Pleading

Counsel preparing complaints must be precise in articulating the relief sought in addition to disclosing any already started or pending proceedings in another forum arising out of the same facts, as failure to do so may lead to objections regarding the maintainability of the proceedings as well as inducing adverse inferences. In situations where there is overlapping of the client’s claims in terms of possession, or compensation or that of insolvency-related relief, the order of proceedings assumes significance because obtaining a refund order from RERA and then executing it may be a smarter option than trying to push mutually exclusive claims before three forums at the same time. Finally, RERA’s special factual findings of the tribunal may act as persuading factors for other tribunals, the counsel should not miss the opportunity to represent his client before RERA since it may be useful in future proceedings.

Conclusion

A project is registered under RERA, does not mean that it is exempted from any legal action by customers. RERA registration just means that the project developer has met all the legal requirements of launching a project. The Supreme Court has made countless rulings involving RERA registered projects wherein it clarified that the three main laws governing consumer protection namely RERA, CPA and IBC which are to be taken together and as a result, the consumer has the option of applying any of the laws in any of the cases. The judgement in the case of Kabra and Associates delivered in March 2026 does not come in the way of the concurrent application of the laws and merely draws the line by saying that the concurrent remedy should only be applied once in one of the courts and cannot be used again in another court for the same cause of action. In other words, having registered under RERA is not enough for project owners to be protected against legal actions in regard to the services rendered to clients.

Author: Aaradhya Soni in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to content@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References (Endnotes)

1. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, ss. 12, 14, 18, 19, 43(5), 71, 79, 88.

2. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, ss. 2(7), 34, 47, 58, 100.

3. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, s. 5(8)(f).

4. Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India, (2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9302)

5. Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1020

6. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.,(2019) 8 SCC 416

7. Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma & Anr.2025 INSC 1110.

8. M/s Kabra and Associates & Ors v. Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev & Ors ,2026 LLBiz SC 109

9. Lawbeat, "Supreme Court: Homebuyers Cannot Approach Consumer Forum After Choosing RERA Remedy" (March 2026).

10. LiveLaw, "Supreme Court Sets Aside NCDRC Order, Says Homebuyers Who Choose RERA Cannot Later Approach Consumer Forum" (March 2026).