1.      Heard counsel for the parties.

2.      The above appeal has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka dated 23.03.2022 passed in CC/71/2016 whereby the complaint has been allowed and the opposite parties/appellants have been directed to give Rs.1999550/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of valuation report and pay compensation of Rs.50000/- and litigation cost of Rs.25000/-. 

3.      The office has submitted a report that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 83 days.  The appellant has filed IA/9539/2022 for condoning the delay.  In the IA, it has been stated that the appellant obtained copy of the impugned order on 16.06.2022 but the same copy was misplaced by the staff of the appellant.  As such, for further two months it could not be noticed.  Later on, when the copy was received, the appellant approached the counsel in Delhi and appeal was drafted and it was filed on 07.10.2022.  Cause shown is sufficient.  Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.  IA/9539/2022 is allowed. 

4.      The respondent filed CC/71/2016 alleging that the appellants/opposite parties were partnership firm and engaged in the business of construction of multi storey complex and selling it.  The appellant launched a multi storey complex in the name of ‘Aarya Enclave’ in the year 2013.  On coming to know about the aforesaid project, the complainant booked flat no.302 vide agreement dated 18.06.2014.  At the time of agreement, the opposite parties have given understanding that the construction would be completed till September 2014 but the construction could not be completed on the spot.  However, the sale deed dated 15.09.2014 was executed by the opposite party in favour of the complainant of flat no.302.  The opposite parties have to complete the other works as per specifications namely kitchen work i.e. fixing of wash basin pipe, fixing of tap of one bath room, fixing door locks in main door and three internal doors, water proof treatment, electrical wiring and fittings, plumbing works, slope of tiles to flow of water to the drain, providing water level controller, providing extra chajja to provide shelter from rain water, carpenter and fixing of locker to the doors and internal painting work in the flat of the complainant.  Apart from the aforesaid works, some common amenities and facilities namely passenger lift, rectification of MS gates at entrance, seepage of water in walls and roof, many area electrical wires are left open, proper connection of Cauvery water supply, incomplete works for rainwater harvesting, water proofing over the roof is not done properly and slope for flow of rain water to be provided, safety grills for the parking area and katha, occupancy certificate.  In order to complete the aforesaid works, the complainant has obtained some report from the architect and as per the report, Rs.1880000/- has been claimed by the complainant. 

5.      Inspite of the service of notice, the appellants could not file written version in the complaint within 45 days.  Therefore, the complainant was permitted to file affidavit of evidence and the matter was heard thereafter.  The State Commission, by the impugned order dated 23.03.2022, found that the deficiency in the construction of the flat of the appellants as well as common amenities and facilities, was proved from the valuer’s report as well as affidavit of evidence of the complainant.  Accordingly, the complaint had been allowed.  Hence, this appeal has been filed. 

6.      Counsel for the appellants submits that on the Sale Deed dated 15.09.2014, another supplementary agreement was executed between the parties on the same date i.e. 15.09.2014.  As per the supplementary agreement, the complainant had to pay Rs.17 lacs.  Apart from it, the complainant has not paid the balance amount of Rs.148800/-.  Therefore, the complaint was not liable to be allowed. 

7.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties.  So far as supplementary agreement dated 15.09.2014 is concerned, it was in respect of some additional works while the present complaint was not filed for construction of the additional works.  Rather, the complaint was filed for construction of incomplete works in the flat of the complainant i.e. flat no.302 and for common facilities and amenities.  Therefore, non-consideration of supplementary agreement by the State Commission does not cause any prejudice to the appellants. 

8.      So far as the allegation of the appellant that an amount of Rs.148800/- was remaining due upon the complainant is concerned, the copy of the Sale Deed has been filed alongwith the paper-book of the appeal in which the appellant has acknowledged the payment of Rs.68 lacs which was the entire sale consideration. Vide clause 1 of the Sale Deed in which mode of payment was also disclosed which was through cheque or through bank loan.  Therefore, nothing remained to be paid.  So far as Stamp Duty is concerned, in the Sale Deed, Stamp Duty has been affixed.  There is nothing on record to show that the Stamp Duty was paid by the appellant.  The State Commission, relying upon the affidavit of evidence of the complainant as well as valuer’s report, has found that there were various deficiencies in the construction of the flat of the complainant as well as in common amenities and facilities.  The finding of fact recorded by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality.  The appeal has no merit.  It is accordingly, dismissed.