The Supreme Court provided crucial clarification on March 5, 2026, in Kabra and Associates & Ors. v. Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev & Ors., establishing that homebuyers who choose to pursue remedies under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) cannot later switch to the Consumer Protection Act for the same cause of action. According to reports from Business Standard, this ruling, based on the 'doctrine of election', reinforces that buyers cannot pursue parallel remedies or switch forums after choosing one for the same dispute. The recent National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruling in Nikhil Mehta & Anr. v. Gardenview Abode Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., which declined to entertain a complaint seeking a refund already granted by Karnataka RERA, further highlights the importance of careful forum selection.
The 'doctrine of election' means that when two legal remedies are available for the same grievance, a party that pursues one generally cannot later switch to the other. As reported by Business Standard, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in Kabra and Associates v. Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev, stating that the choice is triggered when a party formally approaches and pursues a forum. Section 79 of RERA bars only civil courts, while Section 88 provides that RERA remedies are in addition to remedies available under other laws. However, courts generally do not permit parallel proceedings that seek the same relief for the same cause of action, with the Supreme Court holding in Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni (2020) that RERA does not bar consumer fora.
Once RERA has ordered a refund with interest, buyers may face difficulty seeking additional compensation from consumer commissions for the same default, such as compensation for mental agony, litigation costs, rental expenses or other consequential losses. According to Business Standard reports, the key question is whether the additional claim arises from the same delay, non-delivery or breach already addressed by RERA. If so, the consumer commission may reject it to prevent overlapping relief and duplication of compensation. This limitation applies even if the developer fails to comply with a RERA refund order, as buyers should ordinarily pursue enforcement rather than restarting the same dispute before another forum.
The choice between RERA and consumer commissions should depend on the nature of the grievance and relief sought. As reported by Business Standard, RERA may be more suitable for project-related issues such as delayed possession, refund, project completion or statutory interest, while consumer commissions can address deficiency in service, unfair trade practices and consequential damages. Buyers should consider limitation periods - consumer complaints generally have a two-year limitation period, while RERA does not prescribe a specific limitation period under Section 31. Additionally, buyers can change relief sought from possession to refund under Section 18 of RERA, subject to conditions, but changing forums can trigger the doctrine of election.
If a developer fails to comply with a RERA refund order, buyers should ordinarily pursue enforcement rather than restarting the same dispute before another forum. According to Business Standard reports, Section 40 of RERA provides an enforcement mechanism, with the Supreme Court's Newtech Promoters judgment clarifying that refund and interest can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Buyers can seek execution of the RERA order and issuance of a recovery certificate for action by revenue authorities. The latest NCDRC ruling also makes clear that difficulty in enforcing a RERA order does not entitle buyers to seek the same refund again before a consumer commission, requiring appropriate supervisory or constitutional remedies instead.
