LI Network
Published on: 24 September 2023 at 00:58 IST
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in New Delhi delivered a verdict in favor of Kanoria Energy & Infrastructure Limited (formerly A. Infrastructure Limited) against Macrotech Developers Ltd. This case revolved around a dispute concerning delayed possession of residential flats in Mumbai.
The verdict, handed down on September 20, 2023, was issued by the Presiding Member of the Commission, Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, along with Member Bharatkumar Pandya.
The case encompassed various significant aspects, including the complainant’s request to amend their name, allegations of delayed possession, and the invocation of the doctrine of estoppel by the opposing party.
Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, in a comprehensive order, addressed the central issue concerning the applicability of the doctrine of estoppel by election. The complainant, Kanoria Energy & Infrastructure Limited, had previously filed complaints under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), and had pursued other legal avenues, including appeals and proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Justice Maurya explained, “Intentional exercise of a choice between the alternatives bars the persons making the choice from the benefit of the one not selected on the principle of ‘estoppel by election.'” In essence, this principle implies that when two concurrent remedies are available, choosing one remedy may preclude the use of the other for the same cause of action.
However, the Commission took note of a crucial factor in its decision, emphasizing that Section 18 of RERA contains language suggesting that remedies under other laws, such as the Consumer Protection Act, can coexist with RERA remedies.
Justice Maurya emphasized, “The expression ‘without prejudice to any other remedy available’ as used in Section 18 of the RERA permits the complainant to avail remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is in addition and not in derogation of any other law.”
The Commission also referred to prior judgments, including cases like Pioneer Urban Land Infrastructure Limited Vs. Union of India and Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna, which affirmed the concurrent nature of remedies available to consumers under different laws.
Ultimately, the Commission concluded that the complaint was not barred by the doctrine of estoppel and was maintainable.
The case in question was titled “INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Vs MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.”
Also Read: Appeal under the Consumer Protection Act – Law Insider India