The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has rejected a complaint against a property developer. The reason for this dismissal was that the complainant had already sought a resolution for the same issue from an authority operating under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA).

NCDRC Presiding Member Ram Surat Ram Maurya and Member Bharatkumar Pandya have expressed the view that to prevent multiple legal proceedings and conflicting judgments involving the same parties and issue, the principle of "estoppel by election of remedy" should be invoked.

Hence, the NCDRC dismissed the complainant's contention that Section 18 of the RERA suggested that an aggrieved individual could seek remedies from both the consumer court and the RERA tribunals simultaneously.

Upon discovering that appeals related to the same complaint were already pending before an appellate tribunal operating under the RERA, the NCDRC ruled that the consumer complaint could not be maintained and therefore dismissed it.

The NCDRC concluded that the current complaint is prohibited by the principle of "estoppel by election of remedy" and is not eligible to proceed. As a result, they dismissed the complaint on these grounds.

The dispute revolved around a group housing project named "Trump Tower" located in Mumbai. The complainant in this case was a company called Kanoria Energy & Infrastructure Limited. They filed a complaint against the developer (referred to as the opposite party), alleging that the developer had not delivered possession of two flats on schedule, which led to the dispute.

The NCDRC received information that the complainant had previously lodged two complaints with the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) seeking a refund of their money. These two complaints were dismissed in June 2022, and the complainant subsequently filed appeals contesting these dismissals, which were still pending before an appellate authority at the time of the NCDRC proceedings.

In September 2022, the complainant filed a complaint with the NCDRC, asserting a deficiency in service by the developer. In response, the developer contested this consumer court complaint, citing that the complainant had already opted to seek remedies through the RERA. Furthermore, the developer presented the argument that the complainant had also initiated proceedings in the National Company Law Tribunals in both Delhi and Mumbai concerning related issues, and these proceedings were also pending.

The complainant contended that Section 18 of the RERA explicitly stated that its remedies were provided "without prejudice to any other remedy." Based on this, the complainant argued that they were entitled to pursue remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as well. They asserted that this was an additional option and did not nullify or override any other existing legal provisions.

After evaluating the arguments presented by both parties, the NCDRC leaned toward the developer's position, asserting that the doctrine of estoppel by election precluded the consumer court from addressing the complaint in this particular case.

The NCDRC ruled that when individuals intentionally make a choice between available alternatives, they forfeit the right to benefit from the option not selected, based on the principle of ‘estoppel by election.’

The NCDRC additionally rejected the relevance of specific judgments presented by the complainant in support of their argument that the consumer complaint should be upheld. The NCDRC observed that these cited judgments did not address the doctrine of estoppel by election, and therefore, they were not applicable in the current context.

The NCDRC also clarified that the matter of 'estoppel by election' was not under dispute in this case, and no legal precedent had been established in this regard. Nevertheless, to prevent the proliferation of legal proceedings and the possibility of conflicting judgments on the same matter involving the same parties, the NCDRC decided to apply the principle of 'estoppel by election of remedy.' As a result, they dismissed the consumer complaint.

Case: A Infrastructure limited v Macrotech Developers limited, Consumer Case No. 182 OF 2022.