(BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V B, ADVOCATE) v. DAVANAGERE - 560 006

1. SRI. MUKESH P. SHAH S/O. POPATLAL SHAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS PARTNER OF M/S. AARYA BUILDERS R/AT. NO.12 AAKAR RESIDENCY 3RD FLOOR, 7TH CROSS ATMANANDA COLONY RT NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 032.

2. SRI. ARUN KHANNA S/O. LATE S.N. KHANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS PARTNER OF M/S. AARYA BUILDERS R/AT. NO.27, VRD ROAD MADHAV NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 001. (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT IS NOT CLAIMED) (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V B, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48236-DB WP No. 21048 of 2025 HC-KAR AND:

SRI. SANJAY KUMAR BHALLA S/O. H.G. BHALLA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT. 45 FLAT NO.302 AARYA ENCLAVE 3RD CROSS MARAPPA THOTA JC NAGAR DAVANAGERE - 560 006. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.05.2024, PASSED IN FIRST APPEAL NO.763/2022, PASSED BY THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI, VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48236-DB WP No. 21048 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present petition is filed impugning the judgment dated 24.05.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (for short ‘National Commission’) in First Appeal No.763/2022 against the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Principal Bench) (for ‘State Commission’), complaint No.CC/71/2016.

The petitioners are builders by profession. The petitioners had entered into an agreement with the respondent by which it was promised to the respondent that they would complete the entire construction of the housing complex and deliver possession within a period of 18 months from the date of sanction of the building plan. The building plan got sanctioned on 29.04.2013. The respondent had paid Rs.18,80,000/- to the builders on the promise made by the builders that the flat booked by the respondent would be delivered on time. When the delivery was not effected on time, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48236-DB WP No. 21048 of 2025 HC-KAR the respondent/complainant instituted the consumer complaint before the State Commission, praying for a direction to the petitioners/builders to complete the pending construction works within specified period of time and in default, to pay Rs.18,80,000/- to the complainant to complete the pending construction works and pay Rs.1,19,550/- along with interest at rate of 12% per annum towards expenses and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.50,000/-.

The State Commission after considering pleadings and evidence led by the parties and the submissions advanced, passed the impugned order dated 23.03.2022 directing the petitioners/builders to pay Rs.19,99,550/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of valuation report till realization and further, directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/-.

The said order passed by the State Commission came to be challenged by the petitioners/builders in First Appeal No.763/2022. The National Commission examined the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48236-DB WP No. 21048 of 2025 HC-KAR case afresh and upheld the order passed by the State Commission. The National Commission has observed that the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners did not get enough opportunity to place the documents and evidence in their support.

Such a contention is not borne from the record. The order of the State Commission would disclose that each and every document submitted by the parties was considered and all arguments raised were adverted to. The National Commission has considered the case afresh.

We are exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not regular appellate power. The High Court is required to see whether the impugned order is without jurisdiction or there is any error of the law. We do not find any of the aforesaid two grounds available in the present case and thus, we dismiss this writ petition. No order as to costs. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48236-DB WP No. 21048 of 2025 HC-KAR In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, pending I.As. do not survive for consideration and they are disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16