The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the maintainability of a consumer complaint in the presence of parallel arbitration proceedings, emphasizing the additional nature of the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

V.B. Gupta, (P.M) - Petitioners/Complainants have filed this petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act') against impugned order dated 1.7.2013, passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No.127 of 2012.

2. Brief facts are that Petitioner No.1/Complainant No.1 is father of Petitioner No.2/Complainant No.2 and they are owners of house bearing Nos. 1-68 and 1-67 in plot nos. 38 and 37 admeasuring 319 sq. yards respectively. One Vimala Devi is owner of plot No.36 admeasuring 319 sq. yds.

3. Father of Vimala Devi introduced respondent as a reputed builder who suggested that if the plots were developed jointly, they will get large share instead of developing individually. Therefore, petitioners nos. 1 and 2, Vimala Devi and respondent entered into a development agreement and agreed to share 40% to petitioners no.1 and 2 in their site and 40% to Vimala Devi for her site and remaining 60% to the developer. The project has to be completed within 18 months and respondent agreed to allot flats No.1 to 4 on 4 floor and flats No. 3 to 5 on the 2nd floor falling to the share of both petitioners. In respect of clause 18 and 26 of the agreement, respondent agreed to pay damages @ 4/- per sq. ft. per month for total built up area including common areas. During the course of construction, the petitioners requested the respondent to do certain extra works and respondent demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and they paid the said amount. The respondent failed to complete the construction of the flats and was constructing flats falling to the share of petitioners, at a snail pace. Hence, petitioners refused to register the flats unless respondent complete the flats falling to their share and handover the possession. The respondent got issued a legal notice on 04/06/2009 calling upon the petitioners to pay Rs.9,72,264/- with interest @ 24% p.a. and Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages to which a suitable reply was got issued by the petitioners. The respondent list out the flats fallen to the share of the petitioners and started collecting rents. On verification by petitioners, it was found that 10 feet from North to South on the Western side in the land of Vimala Devi was taken over by HUDA for the purpose of road widening and there by the actual assessment was reduced to 273 sq. yds. instead of 319 sq. yds. Therefore, proportionate sharing as agreed under the agreement is incorrect. Hence, the petitioners filed consumer complaint to direct respondent to pay Rs.4,10,000/- as rent which petitioners ought to get and Rs.10,24,860/- as damages for delay in construction and completion of the residential building and Rs.2,00,000/- as damages for mental and physical agony faced by the petitioners.

4. The respondent remained ex parte before the District Forum.

5. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranga Reddy (for short, 'District Forum') vide order dated 29.11.2011 allowed the complaint and passed following order;

"We direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,57,000/- towards rents illegally collected by the Opposite Party and Rs.10,24,860/- for not completing the project in time and we also award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony caused in not completing the project in time. A sum of Rs.2,000/- is awarded as costs."

6. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, Respondent filed appeal before the State Commission which vide its impugned order, set aside the order of District Forum and allowed the appeal by passing following order;

"13. In the result, the appeal is disposed of setting aside the order of the District Forum. The respondents are at liberty to approach appropriate and competent court/Forum. In the event the respondents approach the court/forum, the period spent between the filing of the claim before the District Forum and the disposal of the matter today by us will be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the