RERA or consumer commission: where a delayed-flat complaint should go, and why you usually get one shot

Rules and rates as of 14 October 2026.

When a flat is late, a buyer has two main doors to knock on. One is the state's real estate regulator, set up under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The other is a consumer commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Both can order a builder to pay. The choice between them matters more than most buyers realise, because the Supreme Court has now said that once you pick one and commit to it, you may not be able to switch. This explainer sets out what the two laws say and how the courts have read them. It is not legal advice; a lawyer who has read your agreement should help you choose.

Why both doors are open

RERA has three sections that decide how it sits next to other laws.

• Section 79 says no civil court can hear a suit or proceeding on a matter that the RERA authority, its adjudicating officer or the appellate tribunal is empowered to decide.
• Section 88 says the Act is "in addition to, and not in derogation of" any other law.
• Section 71(1) sets up the adjudicating officer, a serving or former District Judge, to decide compensation under sections 12, 14, 18 and 19. Its proviso let a buyer whose complaint was already pending before a consumer forum when RERA began withdraw it, with the forum's permission, and move it to the adjudicating officer.

On the consumer side, section 2(42) of the 2019 Act lists "housing construction" in its definition of a service. So a builder's delay can be a deficiency in service.

In Imperia Structures Ltd v Anil Patni (2 November 2020), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that section 79 does not bar a consumer commission, because a consumer commission is not a civil court (para 27). Reading the section 71 proviso, it said "a choice or discretion is given to the allottee" whether to go under the consumer law or under RERA (para 28). It relied on section 88 as an express saving of other remedies.

The catch: you elect, and then you are held to it

A choice cuts both ways. In Kabra and Associates v Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev (Civil Appeal 6936 of 2023, decided 4 February 2026), two buyers in Maharashtra had filed a refund complaint under section 18 of RERA before MahaRERA. In May 2019 the authority disposed of it after they asked to withdraw and refile. They did nothing more until 2022, when they filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The NCDRC held it maintainable in August 2023.

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court set that order aside. Relying on the three-judge bench in Ireo Grace Realtech v Abhishek Khanna (2021), it said "an election of a remedy arises when two concurrent remedies are available". Since it "was open to the complainants to elect/opt for one or the other remedy" and they had chosen RERA, "they could not have retracted therefrom", and it "was not open to them at that stage to opt for the other remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019". The buyers' review petition was dismissed on 18 August 2026, the order recording "no grounds made out for review".

Two cautions about reading too much into it. The order turns on its facts: the buyers had gone to RERA on the same cause of action and withdrawn only with liberty to refile there. And it does not undo Imperia; it applies the same idea that the buyer has a choice, and adds that the choice is binding once made.

Separately, in Mansi Brar Fernandes v Shubha Sharma (12 September 2025), the Court described RERA as "the primary forum for redressal of homebuyers' grievances" and said consumer forums "should confine themselves to adjudicating individual service deficiencies" (para 15.2). The same judgment still calls the two remedies "additional, not exclusive" (para 18.3.1). So the consumer route is open, but the Court's direction of travel favours RERA.

The two forums side by side

Point	RERA authority / adjudicating officer	Consumer commission
Law	RERA Act, 2016 (s.31 complaint; s.71 compensation)	Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Who decides compensation	Adjudicating officer, a serving or former District Judge (s.71(1))	District, State or National Commission, by value
Money ceiling	None set in the Act	Up to ₹50 lakh: District; over ₹50 lakh to ₹2 crore: State; over ₹2 crore: National (2021 Rules)
Time limit to file	None set in the Act	2 years from the cause of action, extendable for sufficient cause (s.69)
Decision target	Compensation application: 60 days, with reasons if longer (s.71(2))	Not covered here
What it looks at	Breach of the Act, rules or regulations, by promoter, allottee or agent (s.31)	Deficiency in service, including housing construction (s.2(42))

Section 72 of RERA tells the adjudicating officer what to weigh when fixing compensation: any disproportionate gain or unfair advantage to the builder where it can be measured, the loss caused to you, and whether the default is repeated.

Which consumer commission? The limits changed in 2021

The 2019 Act, as passed, set the District Commission's limit at ₹1 crore and the State Commission's at ₹10 crore (sections 34, 47 and 58), but let the Centre prescribe other values. It did so on 30 December 2021 (G.S.R. 912(E)). Under the Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021, the test is "the value of the goods or services paid as consideration":

• District Commission: does not exceed ₹50 lakh (rule 3).
• State Commission: exceeds ₹50 lakh but does not exceed ₹2 crore (rule 4).
• National Commission: exceeds ₹2 crore (rule 5).

The test is the consideration, not the size of your claim. Asking for more interest or compensation does not push you up a tier.

Worked example: a ₹1.2 crore flat

Say the agreement price is ₹1,20,00,000. The rules use two cut-offs, ₹50,00,000 and ₹2,00,00,000.

Case A: you have paid 80% by the promised possession date.

• Paid: ₹1,20,00,000 × 80% = ₹96,00,000
• Test: ₹50,00,000 < ₹96,00,000 ≤ ₹2,00,00,000, so State Commission.
• On the full price instead: ₹50,00,000 < ₹1,20,00,000 ≤ ₹2,00,00,000, so State Commission again.

Case B: you have paid 37.5% (an early-stage project).

• Paid: ₹1,20,00,000 × 37.5% = ₹45,00,000
• On the amount paid: ₹45,00,000 ≤ ₹50,00,000, so District Commission.
• On the full price: ₹1,20,00,000 is above ₹50,00,000, so State Commission.

The words "paid as consideration" can be read either way for a part-paid flat, and we have not read a ruling that settles it for home buyers. In Case B, settle the tier with your lawyer before filing, since a builder can object to a commission's jurisdiction. On RERA's side, the amount makes no difference to where you file.

Questions to settle before you choose

• Have you already filed anywhere? After Kabra, a RERA complaint you withdrew may count against a later consumer case on the same facts.
• How old is the cause of action? The consumer route has a two-year limit under section 69, with delay condoned only for sufficient cause.
• Is the project registered? In Kabra, MahaRERA had held that the building did not need registration, yet the Supreme Court still treated the RERA route as the one the buyers had chosen.
• What do you want? Refund or delay interest under section 18, compensation under section 71, or a finding of deficiency in service. Each is framed differently in each forum.