As these first appeals are directed against the same impugned order, they are being disposed of by this common order. 

Allured by the facilities promised by the respondent/opp.party, appellant/Complainants entered into an agreement of sale on 31.3.2008 with the respondent to purchase a flat with one covered parking for Rs.25 lakh in a multi-storey building.  After the entire payment was made as per schedule, appellant got possession of the flat in incomplete condition.  Though conveyance deed was executed for the flat, the appellants vide letter dated 30.12.2008, intimated to the respondent that there was no provision for generator, irregular operation of lift in Block B, no adequate and sustainable water supply from KMC connection, no fire-fighting equipments/installations/facilities, etc.  There was no completion certificate of the building as well.  Appellants had also alleged that the water connection which was provided by the opp.party was insufficient and absolutely unfit for drinking.  The appellants along with other flat owners wrote letters dated 26.9.2008 and 19.12.2008 requesting the Mayor-in-council and the Councillor for adequate water to be supplied by the KMC as the appellants were using unhygienic water not suitable for drinking.  A meeting took place between the appellants and other affected parties and the respondent on 7.2.2009 wherein the respondent admitted several deficiencies and shortcomings in respect of the facilities that were to be provided and undertook to rectify the same.  Appellants filed complaint with the averments that despite such undertaking, no remedial work was undertaken by the respondent causing great distress to the appellants.

State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to execute/register the deed of conveyance in favour of the appellants and complete its commitments made in the meeting held on 7.2.2009.  Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.  Direction was issued to the respondent to comply with the directions within 60 days of the passing of the order.  The complaint was disposed of with the following directions :

“From the said minutes of the discussion it is clear to us that the OP assured the Complainants that he will do all necessary steps for redressal of the grievance of the Complainants. Such commitments made by the OP clearly proved that there are several defects in the said flat and construction work has not been completed till filing of this complaint. From the test report of water as provided by the OP it is evident that the percentage of silica is very high in the said water which is not suitable for drinking. Admittedly the OP has received entire consideration of the flat and he committed through his brochure as well as in the agreement for sale that several common facilities and amenities will be provided to the Complainants but we have noticed there is some deviation in the said commitment. In our opinion as the OP has taken entire consideration, he is liable to provide all the facilities as per agreement to the Complainants without raising any question. The discussion sheet has made it clear that there is several incomplete and unfinished works in the said flat as well as building in question. Admittedly the Complainants paid enter consideration to the OP in respect of the flat, car parking space as well as the common facilities and as the OP did not provide common facilities as per the agreement to the Complainants till filing of this compliant, such inaction on behalf of the OP can easily be termed as deficiency in service for which OP is liable to pay compensation to the complainants.

Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is ordered that the complaint be allowed in part on contest with cost. The OP shall register and execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainants within 60 days from the date of passing of this judgment and shall comply with his commitments as per annexure–H i.e. discussion in the meeting on 07.02.2009 within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this judgment. Though the OP has committed to complete the unfinished and incomplete works in the flat in question but till filing of this complaint Op did not take any step and the Complainants had to approach before this court of law for their redressal. For this reasons the Complainants are entitled to get some compensation from the OP which is in our opinion shall be Rs.2,000/-. The OP is directed to pay the amount of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant due to mental agony and harassment to the Complainants within a period of 60 days from the date of this judgment and OP shall also pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainants as due to his dilly–dalling practice to perform the job within due time . The OP is directed to pay the litigation cost of the Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this judgment. With the above mentioned view the complaint is case is thus disposed of.”

        Respondent had accepted the order.  Counsel for the respondent states that the respondent has not filed any appeal and do not intend to file appeal against the order of the State Commission.  Appellants, who were Complainants, have filed the appeal.  Whatever relief the appellants had prayed for has been granted to them.  A meeting was held on 7.2.2009 between the appellants along with similarly situated persons and the respondent wherein the respondent undertook to remove the defects/provide certain facilities.  Direction has been issued to the respondent to comply with their undertaking given on 7.2.2009.  State Commission has given a direction to the respondent to execute the deed of conveyance which is redundant in view of the fact that conveyance deed has already been executed in favour of the appellants.  Only grievance of the appellants in this appeal is that the compensation awarded is on the lower side.  State Commission, keeping in view the facts of the case, in its discretion, has awarded a particular compensation and we are not inclined to interfere with the same.  Dismissed.

        In case, the respondent does not comply with the decree passed in favour of the appellants, appellants would be at liberty to execute the same.