Supreme Court Clarifies: Homebuyers Who First Approach RERA Cannot Later Invoke Consumer Forum for Same Dispute

1. Background and Context

The Supreme Court of India in Kabra and Associates & Ors. Vs Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6936/2023, judgment dated 04/02/2026) has delivered an important ruling on the interplay between remedies available under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (Act of 2016 / RERA) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The dispute arose from homebuyers who initially invoked the jurisdiction of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) against the developer, M/s Kabra and Associates, and later attempted to pursue the same grievance before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

The central legal issue was whether, after opting for the RERA mechanism and withdrawing a complaint with liberty to re-approach the same Authority, the complainants could subsequently abandon that route and instead file a consumer complaint before the NCDRC on the same cause of action.

The Supreme Court answered this in the negative, setting aside the NCDRC’s order dated 23.08.2023 which had held Consumer Complaint No.122/2022 to be maintainable.

2. Factual Matrix

2.1 Parties and Project

  • Developer: M/s Kabra and Associates and its partners (appellants before the Supreme Court).
  • Homebuyers/Complainants: Rekha and Raj Kumar Hemadev (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Supreme Court).
  • Flats in question: Flat Nos. 2101 and 2102 in the developer’s project originally referred to as “KABRA AURUM”, with reference also to another project named “KABRA VIHANG”.

2.2 First Complaint before MahaRERA – Registration Issue under Section 3

The homebuyers initially lodged Source Complaint Case No. SC10001434 before MahaRERA. Their grievance was that M/s Kabra and Associates had not registered the building (where they had purchased the flats) as an ongoing project, allegedly in violation of Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

MahaRERA disposed of this first complaint by order dated 14.05.2019, holding that registration of the project under Section 3 was not mandatorily required in the facts of that case.

The Supreme Court specifically noted that:

  • Whether or not this finding was legally correct is immaterial at this stage;
  • The order dated 14.05.2019 has attained finality;
  • Consequently, it is binding between the parties and cannot be reopened in collateral proceedings.

2.3 Second Complaint before MahaRERA – Refund Claim under Section 18

Subsequently, the homebuyers filed another complaint, CC No.006000000057380, before MahaRERA under Section 18 of the Act of 2016.

  • Relief sought: Refund of the amounts paid for Flat Nos. 2101 and 2102 in the project “KABRA AURUM”.

However, during the course of this proceeding, the complainants sought to withdraw the complaint.

They submitted a letter dated 15.02.2019 to MahaRERA, asserting that:

  • They had erroneously referred to a different project; and
  • They intended to file a fresh complaint before RERA in respect of an unregistered project named “Vihang”, where they claimed to have actually purchased the property and alleged that they had been cheated.

Their letter specifically stated:

“……Sir, I will file again in RERA not registered project as “Vihang” and where actually the property was purchased and we have been cheated”.

2.4 MahaRERA’s Order Dated 15.05.2019 on Withdrawal

Acting on the withdrawal request, MahaRERA passed an order dated 15.05.2019, recording the following key aspects: