Consumer rights in flat purchases survive real-estate registration, with refund and service-deficiency remedies remaining available.

Purchasers of residential flats were treated as consumers where bookings were for personal accommodation and housing loans or similar investment showed consumer status; delay and alleged force majeure did not excuse the admitted incomplete construction, so deficiency in service stood. The consumer complaint was also held maintainable because the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides an additional remedy, and the real-estate regime preserves other remedies; its bar on civil courts does not extend to consumer fora. Later registration of the project did not defer or curtail accrued contractual and statutory rights, so the allottees' entitlement to refund with interest and consequential relief remained intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether purchasers of residential flats were consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and whether the delay in construction/discovery of force majeure justified interference with the finding of deficiency in service; (ii) Whether the enactment and registration of the project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 barred complaints before consumer fora or displaced the remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; (iii) Whether the registration of the project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 deferred or curtailed the allottees' entitlement to refund and relief under the builder-buyer agreements.

Issue (i): Whether purchasers of residential flats were consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and whether the delay in construction/discovery of force majeure justified interference with the finding of deficiency in service.

Analysis: The complaint records and the contractual setting showed that the flats were booked for residential use and that the purchasers had taken housing loans or otherwise invested for personal accommodation. The finding that they fell within the definition of consumer was upheld. The plea of force majeure was rejected because no acceptable evidence established that the delay in construction was caused by events beyond the developer's control. The admitted incomplete construction supported the finding of deficiency in service.

Conclusion: The finding that the respondents were consumers and that there was deficiency in service was affirmed in favour of the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the enactment and registration of the project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 barred complaints before consumer fora or displaced the remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Analysis: The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an additional-remedy statute by virtue of Section 3, while the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 also preserves other remedies through Sections 18 and 88. Section 79 bars civil courts, not consumer fora, and the proviso to Section 71 permits but does not compel withdrawal of pending consumer complaints. The statutory scheme therefore admits concurrent remedies, and the consumer fora retained jurisdiction despite the later real-estate legislation.

Conclusion: The consumer complaints were maintainable and were not barred by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, in favour of the respondents.

Issue (iii): Whether the registration of the project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 deferred or curtailed the allottees' entitlement to refund and relief under the builder-buyer agreements.

Analysis: The project had been booked and the contractual period for completion had long expired before registration under the real-estate law. Registration valid up to a later date did not postpone the accrued rights of the allottees, because the relevant time for relief remained the contractual schedule and the rights preserved by the statute. The contractual and statutory entitlement to refund with interest therefore survived.

Conclusion: The allottees' entitlement to seek refund and consequential relief was unaffected by the later registration of the project, in favour of the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The statutory remedies under the consumer law remained available alongside the real-estate regime, the challenge to consumer jurisdiction failed, and the relief granted by the consumer commission was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A special real-estate statute that provides remedies without prejudice to other remedies does not oust consumer jurisdiction where the consumer statute itself creates an additional remedy and the civil-court bar is not extended to consumer fora.

---