JUDGMENT The Order of the Commission was delivered by : Coari, Member, J.- The present petition of complaint has been filed by Satyanarayan Apartment Flat Owners' Association through its Secretary against the O.P. Nos. 1 to 5 of which O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 are the Promoters and the O.P. No.5 is the landowner, for a direction upon the Ops to provide Completion Certificate of the premises to the Complainants and to pay Rs. 21,50,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost. 2. The main contention of the complainants, in brief, is that the complainants have purchased seven flats out of the Developer's allocation for valuable consideration. According to the complainants, out of those seven flats registration in respect of five flats has been complete and registration in respect of two flats is yet to be done. It is the further case of complainants that the Ops have not yet handed over Completion Certificate to the complainants. Besides that the usual facilities annexed to the housing project are yet to be effected at the instance of the Ops. inasmuch as, only a temporary sewerage connection has been annexed to the housing project and in spite of repeated requests and demands the Ops. are not paying heed to the request so made on behalf of the complainants, nor they are effecting the requisite facilities annexed to the project, which, according to the complainants, tantamounts to deficiency in service and hence, the petition of complaint for proper redressal. 3. The O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 have filed written version thereby denying all the material averments mentioned in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the petition of complaint is not maintainable. Besides that, the agreement entered into by and between the parties contains an Arbitration Clause and in violation to that Arbitration Clause the complainants have approached the Consumer Court, which is not at all permissible under the law and the Complainants being not Consumers the present Consumer Complaint is not maintainable. The Ops are under no obligation to handover the Completion Certificate to the complainants and the petition of complaint having been filed on all false and fictitious grounds the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. The Ops are under no obligation to handover the Completion Certificate to the complainants and the petition of complaint having been filed on all false and fictitious grounds the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. The O.P. No.5 also contested the case by filing a separate written version thereby denying and disputing all the material averments mentioned in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the O.P. No.5 being the landlord is under no obligation to complete the infrastructural facilities to be provided to the complainants. The O.P. No.5 is also experiencing much inconvenience as the O.P. No.5 is also in accommodation of one of the flats in the project and question of deficiency in service, as alleged by the complainants, is not maintainable as against the O.P. No.5 and the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed. 5. Decisions relied upon by the complainants: 1. (2011)1 CPJ 71 (NC) 2. (2011)1 CPJ 218(NC) 3. 2009 CTJ 522 (CP) (NCDRC) 6. Upon pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed for proper adjudication of the present complaint case: 1. Is the petition of complaint maintainable? 2. Are the Ops deficient in service claimed by the complainants? 3. Are the complainants entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? DECISION WITH REASONS 7. All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience. 8. At the time of hearing though the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.5 advanced his arguments but no one was present to advance argument on behalf of O.P. Nos. 1 to 4. 9. At the time of hearing it has been submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No. 5 that in this case the complainants have unnecessarily sought for reliefs against the O.P. No.5, who happens to be the landowner of the property in question. Besides that, according to the Ld. Advocate, the O.P. No.5, who also is in possession of one of the flats in the project in question, is experiencing some inconveniences as faced by the complainants. According to the Ld. Advocate, under no circumstances, the O.P. No.5 can be held responsible on the ground of deficiency as claimed by the complainants. It is the Promoters/Developers, namely, the O.P. Nos. According to the Ld. Advocate, under no circumstances, the O.P. No.5 can be held responsible on the ground of deficiency as claimed by the complainants. It is the Promoters/Developers, namely, the O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 are responsible for non-effecting the infrastructural facilities to the housing project in question including the sewerage system and necessary orders may be passed accordingly thereby exonerating the O.P. No.5 from the Consumer Complaint. 10. We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the O.P. No.5 and have also gone through the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record and find that in this case the complainants have come forward with a case to the effect that the Ops in spite of receiving the entire consideration money have not effected the execution and registration of the deed in respect of two flats and that there is dearth of infrastructural facilities, namely, sewerage system etc., which the complainants are bound to supply and/or make arrangements for the same and hence, the petition of complaint. The O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 have tried to put up a case to the effect that, since the agreement entered into by and between the parties contains an Arbitration Clause, the present Consumer Complaint is not maintainable and that the Ops are not responsible to supply the Completion Certificate to the complainants, which the complainants themselves should procure by observing the requisite formalities from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. In the absence of any deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops the complaint case is liable to be dismissed. 11. The O.P. No.5 has tried to put up a case to the effect that the O.P. No.5 being the landowner is not liable to make any payment as claimed by the complainants, nor the O.P. No. 5 is responsible for supplying the Completion Certificate and/or infrastructural facilities to the housing project. The O.P. No.5 himself resides in the housing project in question and suffers the inconveniences so faced by the complainants and on these grounds the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed. 12. On a careful perusal of the materials on record we find that question of maintainability of the present Consumer Complaint on the point of existence of an Arbitration Clause is not at all tenable. 12. On a careful perusal of the materials on record we find that question of maintainability of the present Consumer Complaint on the point of existence of an Arbitration Clause is not at all tenable. In this regard, the decision reported in 2009 CTJ 522 (CP) (NCDRC) is very much relevant, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held, "The existence of arbitration clause in an agreement is no bar to the entertainment of a complaint by a consumer forum because it provides an additional remedy to a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act". If that be the position, there is practically no impediment in instituting the Consumer Complaint at the instance of the complainant as in the present case. So far as it relates to the plea of limitation raised on behalf of the O.P. Nos. 1 to 4, we are of the considered opinion that such plea does not hold much water as non-supply of Completion Certificate constitutes continuing cause of action in favour of the complainant. This proposition has been enunciated by the Hon'ble National Commission in the decision reported in (2011)1 CPJ 71 (NC), wherein it has been held, "The RPIOP has also raised the plea that the complaint is time-barred, on the ground that the possession had been handed over to the purchasers during 1993-1995 period, while the complaint to the District Forum was made in 2007. This argument cannot be accepted as the completion certificates and occupancy certificates, as observed by the State Commission, have not been made available to the purchasers/occupants. In fact, the RPIOP himself states in his petition to this commission that 'conveyance of the said plot cannot be given at this time as the project approved on the said plot is not yet completed and work of the remaining buildings are under progress'. It is, therefore, a clear case of continuing cause of action". 13. Having considered the present complaint case in the light of above discussions we are of the considered opinion that the complainants have been able to substantiate the allegations so put forward against the Ops by producing and adducing cogent and reliable evidence. It is, therefore, a clear case of continuing cause of action". 13. Having considered the present complaint case in the light of above discussions we are of the considered opinion that the complainants have been able to substantiate the allegations so put forward against the Ops by producing and adducing cogent and reliable evidence. In our opinion, the Ops are bound to supply the infrastructural facilities to the complainants, who are purchasers for value and also to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of two flats of which the execution and registration of the deed of conveyance is still incomplete. However, so far as it relates to awarding of compensation, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice will be met if the complainants are awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- only. All the issues are accordingly disposed of in favour of the complainants. In the result, the complaint case succeeds in part. 14. Hence, it is ORDERED that the petition of complaint stands allowed in part on contest against the O.P. No.5 and ex parte against rest of the Ops. The Ops "are jointly and severally liable to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the remaining two flats as described in Para-1 of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainants within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainants will be at liberty to have the deed executed and registered through the machinery of this Commission. The Ops are further directed jointly and severally to pay Rs. 5,00,000/-. (Rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) by way of costs to the complainants. The Ops are further directed to handover Completion Certificate in respect of the flats so purchased by the complainants and also to construct and arrange necessary sewerage system. The Ops are directed to make payment to the complainants and to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainants will be at liberty to have the directions complied with through execution procedure.