Parties must comply with consumer remedies even if an arbitration clause exists in their agreement.

1. Heard Mr. N. Rajaraman, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Bikram Singh Patel, Advocate, for respondent - 1.

2. I. Srinivas Rao, one of the partner of M/s. Adhunik Builders (the opposite party) has filed above appeal from the order of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru dated 1.4.2021, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 627 of 2017, allowing the complaint with cost of Rs. 50,000 and directing the opposite parties to complete the construction of the apartment and handover its possession to the complainant as per Joint Development Agreement dated 20.9.2010 and pay compensation of Rs. 90 lacs, for delay.

3. The office has reported 156 days delay in filing the appeal. Impugned order was passed on 1.4.2021 and the appeal was filed on 4.10.2021. During this period, the limitation was waived by Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020. As such, we treat the appeal, having been filed within limitation.

4. Mr. R. Nagesh (respondent - 1) filed CC / 627/2017 for directing M/s. Adhunik Builders and its partners (the opposite parties) (i) to complete the construction of the apartment and handover its possession to the complainant as per Joint Development Agreement dated 20.9.2010, (ii) to handover all original documents pertaining to the property, for which, Joint Development Agreement dated 20.9.2010 was executed, (iii) to pay compensation of Rs. 90 lacs, for delaying the construction of the apartment, (iv) to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lacs, for mental agony and harassment and (v) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

5. The complainant stated that M/s. Adhunik Builders and its partners Prem Kumar N. and I. Srinivas Rao (hereinafter referred to as the builder) was a partnership firm and engaged in the business of development and construction of building and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The complainant and his family members were owner of BBMP Khata SI No. 680, Old No. 682/471/28/1, comprised in converted Sy. No. 28/1 (area 36.5 Guntas of land) (an area of 7.5 Guntas of this plot was acquired vide registered Partition Deed dated 8.3.2002 as Document No. 12856/2001-02, Block - 1, Sub-Registrar Bangalore South, on which office of Special Deputy Commissioner Bangalore was constructed) (total area 1 acre 3.08 Guntas) situated at village Thubarahalli, Varthur Hobli, earlier Bengaluru South Taluk and presently Bengaluru East Taluk. Between the builder and all the co - sharers of aforesaid land a Development Agreement was executed on 20.9.2010, for construction of basement, ground floor and 4 upper floors. They agreed for 50% of super constructed area of the co - sharers of the land and remaining 50% of the builder. A Supplementary Agreement dated 20.9.2010 also was executed between the parties, in which, the details of flat numbers falling in the share of the parties were disclosed. The co - sharers of the land executed a General Power of Attorney and handed over the document of title of the land to the builder, for getting sanction of Layout Plan and other statutory approvals. Under the Agreement, construction of the apartment had to be completed within 36 months from 10.2.2011. Layout Plan of the building was sanctioned by the competent authority on 18.5.2011. The builder, thereafter, started construction not strictly according to sanction layout plan and did not take interest in completing it. On the basis of General Power of Attorney of the complainant and his family members, the builder started selling, the flats of the share of the complainant and his family members also. The complainant and his family members app