STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

OF TELANGANA : AT HYDERABAD

CC NO. 237 OF 2014

Between :

1. Prakash Sayini S/o S.Jagannadhan

Aged about 45 years, Occ: Software Engineer

R/o H.No.1-8-700/14, Behind Shankar Mutt

Nallakunta, Hyderabad

2. Pedduri Anuradha W/o Prakash Sayini

Aged about 40 years, Occ: Housewife

R/o H.No.1-8-700/14, Behind Shankar Mutt

Nallakunta, Hyderabad

                                                                                      …Complainants

          A N D

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

           Having its Regd. Off: Flat No.911, Teja Block

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments, Madhapur
          Hyderabad-500081 rep. through its

          Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

2)       Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director, aged about 35 years

          Occ: Business, R/o Flat No.911, Teja Block

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

Hi-tech City, Madhapur
          Hyderabad-500081

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director, aged about 34 yrs

          Occ: Business, R/o Flat No.911,

Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

Hi-tech City, Madhapur
          Hyderabad-500081

                                                                             … Opposite Parties

CC NO. 284 OF 2014

Between :

1. Kolli Ajaya Babu S/o Kolli Ranga Rao

Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business

R/o Flat No.506, Block-28, Malasian Township

KPHB, Hyderabad-500 072

2. Kolli Vijaya Lakshmi W/o Kolli Ajaya Babu

Aged about 46 years, Occ: Housewife

R/o Flat No.506, Block-28, Malasian Township

KPHB, Hyderabad-500072

                                                                                      …Complainants

          A N D

 M/s Aliens Developers Pvt Ltd.,
Alliens Space Station, Corp. Off: Gachibowli

Tallapur, Hyderabad500032

Rep. by its Managing Director

Hari Challa

                                                                                      …Opposite party

CC NO. 289 OF 2014

Between :

GV Rajeswar Rao S/o G.Dasaradha Ramaiah

Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business

R/o 6-3-109, Hasthinapuri, Sainikpuri

Secunderabad-500094

                                                                                      …Complainant

          A N D

 M/s Aliens Developers Pvt Ltd.,
Alliens Space Station, Corp. Off: Gachibowli

Tallapur, Hyderabad500032

Rep. by its Managing Director

Hari Challa

                                                                                      …Opposite party

CC NO. 297 OF 2014

Between :

1. Smt K.Rajani Kumari W/o K.Satyanarayana

Aged about 53 years, Occ: Service

R/o Flat No.102, Second Floor, Chakkilam’s

Ayesha Mansion, Road No.8, H.No.1-4-881

Gandhinagar, Hyderabad-500 080

2. K.Kireet S/o K.Satyanarayana

Aged about 30 years, Occ: Service

R/o Flat No.102, Second Floor,

Chakkilam’s Ayesha Mansion

Road NO.8, H.No.1-4-881, Gandhinagar

(Both presently R/o at 1470 Independence Trail

 Cumming, Georgia-30040, USA)

                                                                                      …Complainants

          A N D

1. M/s Aliens Developers Pvt Ltd.,

Rep. by its Vice President Sri Peri Viswanath S/o P.Sarma

Sy.Nos.384, 385 & 426/A, Space Station, Tellapur

2. Sri Hari Challa S/o not known

Director of M/s Aliens Developers Pvt Ltd.,

Sy. Nos.384, 385 & 426/A, Space Station

Tellapur, Hyderabad-502032

3. Sri N.Ashok Kumar S/o N.Nageswar Rao

Aged about 32 years, Occ: Executive

M/s Aliens Developers Pvt Ltd.,

Sy. Nos.384, 385 & 426/A, Space Station

Tellapur, Hyderabad-502032

                                                                             …Opposite parties

CC NO.67 OF 2015

Between :

Mr.Suresh Babu Cilimicoti S/o JC Mallikarjunudu

Aged about 39 years, Occ: Software Professional

R/o Arca Residency Flat No.208, Behind Lakshmi

Narasimha Swamy Temply, Near Canara Bank

Anjali Gardens, Puppalaguda, Manikonda

Ranga Reddy Dist-500090

                                                                                                …Complainant

          A N D

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director

& Joint Managing Director

          O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block,

My Home Navadeepa

          Apartments, Madhapur, near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad – 500 081.

2)       Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director

M/s Aliens Developers   (P) Ltd.,

O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadeepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad – 500 081.

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director M/s Aliens

          Developers (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.911,

          Teja Block, My Home

Navadeepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad – 500 081.

( present addresses of Ops No.1 to 3 are at

  Aliens Space Station, Tellapur, Ramachandrapuram Mandal

  Medak District, Hyderabad (Telangana-502032)

                                                                                      …Opposite parties

CC NO.80 OF 2015

Between :

1. Mutie Mohammed S/o Aziz Mohammed

Aged about 34 years, Occ: Pvt Employee

2. Atiya Bano Saleem D/o Mohammed Abdus Saleem

Aged about 31 years, Occ: Housewife

Rep. by their GPA, Aziz Mohammed S/o Ali Mohammed

Aged about 63 years, Occ: Retired Draftsman

(All are R/o 20-4-104/3/A, Punch Mohalla,

                                                                                                …Complainant

          A N D

1. M/s Aliens Developers Pvt Ltd.,

Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director

2. M/s Aliens Developers Pvt Ltd.,

Rep. by its Asst. Manager, N.Ashok Kumar

3. M/s Aliens Developers Pvt Ltd.,

Rep. by its Asst. Manager

Ravi Murali Krishna

(All the Ops having their regd. Off at aliens Develpers Pvt.,

 Ltd., Sy.No.384, 385 & 426/A, Tellapur Village

 Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District

 Hyderabad-502032)

                                                                                      …Opposite parties

CC NO.108 OF 2015

Between :

Vummannagari Ramachandra Reddy

S/o V.Narasimha Reddy, aged about 66 years

Occ: Agriculture R/o H.No.8-2-468/1/2/S/3,

Uma Parkside Apartment, Flat No.303, Road No.5

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

                                                                                                …Complainant

          A N D

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director

& Joint Managing Director

          O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block,

My Home Navadeepa

          Apartments, Madhapur, near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad – 500 081.

2)       Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director

M/s Aliens Developers   (P) Ltd.,

O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadeepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad – 500 081.

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director M/s Aliens

          Developers (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.911,

          Teja Block, My Home

Navadeepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad – 500 081.

( present addresses of Ops No.1 to 3 are at

  Aliens Space Station, Tellapur, Ramachandrapuram Mandal

  Medak District, Hyderabad (Telangana-502032)

                                                                                      …Opposite parties

CC NO. 201 OF 2015

Between :

Rajendra Rai S/o Ghanshyam Prasad Rai,

Aged about 38 years, Occ: Software Professional

# 2 Ladys Close, Watford, Hertfordshire

United Kingdom, WD 18 OWA, rep. by his Nominee

Prabhakar Nagaraj Heriuer, S/o H.S.Nagaraj,

Aged about 38 years, Occ: Software Professional

R/o 209A, Nagila Towers, Shyamlal Buildings

Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016

                                                                                                …Complainant

          A N D

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director

& Joint Managing Director

          O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block,

My Home Navadeepa

          Apartments, Madhapur, near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad – 500 081.

2)       Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director

M/s Aliens Developers   (P) Ltd.,

O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadeepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad – 500 081.

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director M/s Aliens

          Developers (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.911,

          Teja Block, My Home

Navadeepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad – 500 081.

( present addresses of Ops No.1 to 3 are at

  Aliens Space Station, Tellapur, Ramachandrapuram Mandal

  Medak District, Hyderabad (Telangana-502032)

                                                                                      …Opposite parties

CC NO.219 OF 2015

Between :

 Dr.Kandala Venu S/o Mr.Srinivasa Chary

Aged about 64 years, Occ: Professor – Kamineni

Institute of Medical Sciences, R/o 6-1-132/39

Padma Rao Nagar, Secunderabad, Telanagana

                                                                                      …Complainant

          A N D

1. M/s Aliens Developers Pvt Ltd.,

Having its regd. Off: Flat No.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments, Madhapur, Hyderabad

Rep. by its Managing Directror, Mr.Hari Challa

Also at Sy.No.384 and 385, Aliens Space Station

Tellapur, Ramchandrapur Mandal, Medak Dist.

Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

2. Hari Challa S/o not known to the complainant

Managing Director, M/s Aliens Developers Pvt Ltd.,

Sy No.384 and 385 Aliens Space Station

Tellapur, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak Dist

3. Venkat Prasanna Challa S/o not known to the

Complainant, Joint Managing Director, M/s Aliens Develpers

Pvt Ltd., Sy No.384 and 385 Aliens Space Station

Tellapur, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Medak District

                                                                                      …Opposite parties

Counsel for the Complainants :         Sri M.Hari Babu,  Sri V.Gourisankara Rao,
                                                          Sri D.Raji Reddy, Sri U.Venkateswara Rao,
                                                          M/s C.Vikram Chandra and Sri Mahmood
                                                          Ali,
                                                               

Counsel for the Opp. parties    :         M/s  P.Raja Sripathi Rao

QUORUM             :

 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO, PRESIDENT

&

SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER

THURSDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY

 TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN

Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)

***

                    The complaints arise out of identical facts and similar circumstances, as such, they are disposed of by common order.  The complaint, CC No.237/2014 is taken as lead case.

2.                 The case of the Complainants in brief, is that the Opposite party No.1 company represented to them that they are engaged in the business of constructing multistoried apartments and entered into development agreement with the owners of the land comprised in survey nos. 384, 385 and 426/A situated at Tellapur village, Ramchandrapur Mandal, Medak district to construct high rise apartments under the name and style of ‘Aliens Space Station-I’ and obtained permission bearing No.HUDA/621/P4/PLG/HMDA(HUDA)/2008 and they would provide all amenities there for, possession by certain period of time as detailed in the table below with a grace period and on such representation of the opposite parties, the complainants  entered into agreement of sale for purchase of flats, having super built-up area with one car parking along with undivided share of land, the details of which are shown in the table below.

3.                 The complainants entered into agreements of sale in respect of flats at Aliens Space Station, situate at Tellapur village, Ramachandrapuram mandal, Medak district for the consideration thereof as detailed in the table below:

4.                 The Opposite parties had not commenced construction of the flats even after the stipulated period is expired and there is no possibility of the construction of the flats as also the Opposite parties had not responded to the repeated requests of the Complainants.  The Complainants had sought for return of the amount with interest, compensation and costs of the complaint, in each case, as detailed below.

5.                 The opposite parties no.1 to 3 resisted the claim on the premise that the complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties relating to the sale transaction entered into between the parties is not maintainable either under law and also in view of the facts of the case and hence liable to be dismissed in limine and also in view of the fact that the Complainants did not approach them before filing the complaint either for refund of money or for cancellation or with any request, hence, cannot attribute any deficiency of service, hence, does not fall under the purview of the C.P. Act.

6.                 The opposite parties submitted that on their application for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land and FTL clearance, permission was granted for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land on 14.04.2007 and FTL clearance was granted on 30.12.2006 and thereafter HUDA earmarked the land as agricultural zone and the opposite patties have filed application for change of use of the land as commercial use zone. The Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I) Department notified the land in survey number 384 as residential use zone. The project could not be commenced in view of proposed road under Master Plan, until realignment of the proposed road without affecting the land in survey number 384 is made. Realignment of the proposed road was approved on 03.04.2008 and the permission was accorded approving the building plan on 11.04.2008. The opposite parties have obtained NOC from the AP Fire Services Department on 15.12.2007 and permission was granted in respect of the building with height of 90.40 meters. The opposite parties obtained NOC from Airport Authority on 10.07.2009.

7.                 The opposite parties have submitted that HUDA accorded technical approval on 14.10.2009 for ground + 20 upper floors and release of building permission up to 29 floors is awaited. The opposite parties have taken all necessary steps to complete the project at the earliest and the project being massive and due to the reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties, the opposite parties could not complete the project within the time frame. The opposite parties informed the complainants about the delay in completion of the project due to delay in clearance from the authorities concerned. In view of arbitration clause, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.

8.                 The opposite parties submitted that the opposite parties agreed to pay Rs.3/- per sqft in terms of Clause VIII (g) of the Agreement for the delay caused in completing the project and adjust the amount towards dues payable by the complainants. Though the delay occurred for completion of the project is beyond the control of the opposite parties, the opposite parties to maintain goodwill and relationship with the customers, willing to pay the compensation at agreed rate.  But the Complainants filed the present complaints with an ulterior motive to defame and to gain.  The complainants are put to strict proof of the payments made by producing the relevant receipts.  The complainants have to pay admittedly the balance consideration and other charges, therefore, unless the complainants pay the balance consideration, asking for delivery of flat is illegal and arbitrary. 

9.                 The reasons for delay is project required clearance from statutory bodies which are necessary for execution of the project. The said fact was informed to the Complainant sand even mentioned in the agreement of sale under clause No.XIV and described as “force majeure”.  The Complainants who paid the part of sale consideration want to take back the investment from Hyderabad due to the changed circumstances in Hyderabad market after bifurcation of the State, thereby sought for refund of the amount.  As there is some delay on the part of the Ops in delivering the flat, the complainant taken advantage of the same and filed the present complaint to avoid cancellation charges.  The complaint is not within the limitation as time prescribed under Section 24A of the C.P. Act, hence not maintainable.  The complainants are not entitled for refund of amount and interest thereon and any compensation and costs.  There is no cause of action for the present complaint.  If the complainants want to take refund of the amount, the complainants shall forego 20% of the flat cost out of the amount paid towards cancellation charges as per the terms of agreement.  Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaints.

10.               During the course of enquiry, the Complainant No.1 got filed evidence affidavit on their behalf and also got marked the documents as exhibits A1 to A18.  On behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 3, the Managing Director of the Opposite party no.1 by name Hari Challa filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex.B1 to B18, in each case.   

11.               The counsel for the Complainants and the Opposite parties had advanced their arguments reiterating the contents of the complaint and the written version in addition to filing written arguments on behalf of Complainants.  Heard both sides.

12.               The points for consideration are :

i)        Whether the complaint is maintainable in view of arbitration clause in the agreement of sale ?

ii)       Whether the complaint is not a ‘consumer dispute’?

iii)      Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties?

iv)      To what relief ?

13.               POINT NO.1 :  The Complainants entered into “Agreement of Sale” with the Opposite parties for purchase of flats as detailed supra, for the consideration thereof and paid the amounts shown therein, proposed to be constructed by the Opposite parties, which are not in dispute.  The agreement of sale was entered into between the Complainants and the Opposite parties in respect of the above stated flats as detailed in the table supra.  Thereafter, the Complainants paid the part consideration amount as per the pricing pattern of the flat issued by the opposite parties on various dates. The agreement of sale provides for reference to arbitration.  The learned counsel for the opposite parties have contended that in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement, the Complainants cannot maintain the complaint before this Commission. 

14.               However, remedy provided under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy and in the light of law laid in “National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy reported in (2012) 2 SCC 506 wherein the maintainability of the complaint before consumer forum prior to the complainants having exhausted the other remedy was considered as under:

“The remedy of arbitration is not the only remedy available to a grower.  Rather, it is an optional remedy.  He can either seek reference to an arbitrator or file a complaint under the Consumer Act.  If the grower opts for the remedy of arbitration, then it may be possible to say that he cannot, subsequently, file complaint under the Consumer Act.  However, if he chooses to file a complaint in the first instance before the competent Consumer Forum, then he cannot be denied relief by invoking Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act.  Moreover, the plain language of Section 3 of the Consumer Act makes it clear that the remedy available in that Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

Thus, in view of the ratio laid in aforementioned decision, the consumer has two options, either to proceed for arbitration process or to invoke the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  As such, it cannot be said that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement.  For the above reasons, the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite parties.

15.               POINTS No.2 & 3 : The Opposite parties 1 to 3 entered into Development Agreement with the land owners of the land admeasuring Ac.19.26 guntas in survey numbers 384, 385 and 426/A situate at Tellapur village of Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak district and they agreed to deliver the residential flat to the Complainants in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon and consented thereto and as per specifications given therein.  The Development Agreement is not merely an agreement and in fact, it is “Development Agreement-cum-Power of Attorney”. 

16.               In pursuance of the development agreement, the opposite parties have obtained permission for construction of the residential building on the land and admittedly there has been abnormal delay in completion of the project in so far as these complaints are concerned.  The opposite parties have attributed the delay to the authorities concerned in granting permission and No Objection Certificate, bifurcation of the State etc., as to the cause for delay in completion of the project.  The opposite parties would contend that the cause for delay is beyond their control which is ‘force majeure’. 

17.               The force majeure clause in the Agreement of sale does not include within its ambit the delay caused in granting permission, NOC etc.  The Opposite parties failed to explain how they could take shelter under the cover of “force majeure”. We may state that the delay caused in obtaining permission or NOC etc., cannot be considered as ‘force majeure’.  It is quite not understandable how the bifurcation of State can be attributed to be cause for delay in completion of the project.  The opposite parties ought to have informed the complainants about the delay likely to be caused in obtaining the permission which they failed to.  For that matter, the Opposite parties cannot receive any sale consideration from any person in respect of any flat unless they have obtained permission from HUDA or HMDA. 

18.               The complainants have submitted that owing to failure of the opposite parties in completing the construction of the subject flats, they opted for cancellation of the agreement of sale of flats and the opposite parties have contended that in order to maintain cordial relations with the complainants, they agreed to pay compensation in terms of the agreement which they entered into in normal course with other customers.  The complainants got issued a notice to the Opposite parties through their counsel setting forth series of events of delay and negligence and false promises made by the Opposite parties seeking for refund of the amount on the premise of inaction on the part of the opposite parties.

19.               The opposite parties have promised to complete construction of the flat and hand over its possession to the complainant(s) within the stipulated time therein with a grace period of six/nine months as agreed and on their failure to perform their part of contract, the opposite parties have proposed to pay rents but failed to pay the same.  However, there is no communication from the side of the opposite parties in this regard and the opposite parties have not filed a piece of paper to show their readiness to pay compensation and adjust the same towards the dues payable by the complainants.  Having received the part sale consideration amount, the Opposite parties kept with them without commencing the construction work of the building.

20.               Not keeping-up promise to complete construction of the building and failure to deliver possession of the flat constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainants have two options left for recovery of the amount, either by filing suit in court of law or by way of filing complaint before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in view of the amount claimed falling within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission.  The contention of the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable is not sustainable. 

21.               The Opposite parties can only receive such amount of sale consideration which would be in accordance with the payment schedule and correspond to the stage of construction of the flats.  However, the Opposite parties had received the sale consideration in excess of what was to be received from the complainants particularly the construction of the building was not yet commenced.  Not keeping-up the promise to complete construction of the building and failure to deliver possession of the flat as also not keeping-up promise to refund the amount as per the terms of the repayment scheduler constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties.

22.               The complainants claimed refund of amount paid together with interest besides claim for damages.  The complainants cannot be said to have acquiesced to the delay in construction of the project.  Though the complainants have not disputed that the opposite parties have informed them about the cause for delay in obtaining permission and NOC etc., which does not disentitle them from claiming compensation.  The complainants are entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount paid from the date of complaint till realization.  For the reasons stated supra, the Points No.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite parties.

23.               POINT No.4 : In the above facts and circumstances, the points 1 to 4 are answered accordingly holding that the Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount to the Complainants.

24.               In the result, the complaints are allowed holding the Opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to refund the amount paid by the Complainants.  In case, sale deed was executed, the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above direction. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.  Time for compliance: four weeks.

CC NO.237/2014 :

(i)       The complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.48,82,168/- ( as per Exs.A4 to A10) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.  Time for compliance: four weeks.

ii)       In case sale deed was executed, the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.

CC NO.284/2014 :      

(i)       The complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- ( as per  with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.  Time for compliance: four weeks.

ii)       In case sale deed was executed, the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.

CC NO.289/2014 :      

(i)       The complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties   to pay an amount of Rs.28,06,191/-(as per A2, A6 & A7) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

ii)       In case sale deed was executed, the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.

CC NO.297/2014 :      

(i)       The complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties   to pay an amount of Rs.29,10,972/- ( as per receipts Exs.A2 to A4) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

ii)       In case sale deed was executed, the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.

CC NO.67/2015 :

(i)       The complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties   to pay an amount of Rs.14,82,270/- ( as per receipts Exs.A3 to A10) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

ii)       In case sale deed was executed, the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.

CC NO.80/2015 :        

(i)       The complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties   to pay an amount of Rs.21,75,500/- ( as per receipts Exs.A1 and A2) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

ii)       In case sale deed was executed, the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.

CC NO108/2015 :       

(i)       The complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties   to pay an amount of Rs.43,50,000/- ( as per receipts Exs.A2 to A8) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

ii)       In case sale deed was executed, the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.

CC N0.201/2015 :

(i)       The complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties   to pay an amount of Rs.37,32,107/- ( as per Ex.A1 and A2)  with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

ii)       In case sale deed was executed, the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.

CC N0.219/2015 :

(i)       The complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties   to pay an amount of Rs.39,90,000/- ( as per Ex.A1 and A2)  with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

ii)       In case sale deed was executed, the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.

PRESIDENT                                      MEMBER

Dated : 23.02.2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 237 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                        For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Prakash Sayini             Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of OP
Complainant No.1                                        No.1).

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1           Copy of Allotment Confirmation Sheet dated 07.03.2008

Ex.A2           Copy of agreement for reservation of flat dated 21.04.2008 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainants

Ex.A3           Copy of Disbursal Letter dated 04.04.2009 of the Axis Bank Ltd.,

Ex.A4           Copy of agreement of sale dated 17.06.2008 executed by Op no.1 in favour of the complainants

Ex.A5           Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 28.07.2008 between Op1, Bank and the complainants

Ex.A6           Copy of letter dated 20.05.2009 of the opposite party no1 addressed to the complainant. 

Ex.A7           Copy of amendment to the agreement of sale dated 17.06.2008

Ex.A8           Copy of letter dated 09.09.2011 of the Op1 addressed to the Bank

Ex.A9           Copy of letter dated 12.10.2011 addressed by the Axis Bank to the Op1

Ex.A10         Copy of amendment to the agreement of sale dated 28.10.2013

Ex.A11         Copy of letter dated 29.10.2013 addressed by Op1 to the complainant no.1

Ex.A12         Copy of letter dated 03.06.2014 addressed by Op1 to the complainant no.1

Ex.A13         Copy of legal notice dated 14.06.2014 got issued by the complainants to
 the opposite parties no.1 to 3

Ex.A14         Copy of Tripartite Agreement  between the complainants, Opposite parties

Ex.A15         Copy of EMI Start letter from the complainant to the Axis Bank informing that he wishes to pay EMI from 01.03.2010 onwards.

Ex.A16         Copy of receipt issued by the Axis Bank for Rs.50 lakhs.

Ex.A17         Copy of Disbursement Request Forum from the Axis Bank

Ex.A18         Copy of payment schedule

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 284 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                        For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Kolli Ajaya Babu           Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of OP
Complainant No.1                                        No.1).

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1           Copy of agreement of Reservation dated 27.04.2010 executed by the Op1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A2           Copy of receipt bearing no.04447 dated 24.04.2010 for Rs.2,50,000/-

Ex.A3           Copy of Bankers Cheque issued in favour of Op1 for Rs.5,00,000/-

Ex.A4           Copy of Bankers  Cheque dated 26.04.2010 issued in favour of Op1 for Rs.5,00,000/-

Ex.A5           Copy of A/c payee cheque issued in favour of Op1 dated 26.04.2010 for Rs.6,00,000/-

Ex.A6           Copy of receipt bearing No.05251 dated 26.04.2010 for Rs.16,00,000/-

Ex.A7           Copy of receipt bearing No.585 dated 26.04.2010 for Rs.9,56,199/-

Ex.A8           Copy of email correspondence dated 08.07.2014

Ex.A9           Copy of email correspondence dated 08.07.2014

Ex.A10         Copy of email correspondence dated 12.07.2014

Ex.A11         Copy of email correspondence dated 18.07.2014

Ex.A12         Copy of email correspondence dated 14.08.2014

Ex.A13         Copy of email correspondence dated 11.10.2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 289 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                        For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  GV Rajeswar Rao                   Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of OP
Complainant                                                No.1).

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1           Copy of Confirmation letter with regard to flat dated 15.11.2010

Ex.A2           Copy of agreement of sale dated 30.04.2011 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A3           Copy of email of Op1 to the complainant dated 03.10.2014 with regard to payment schedule

Ex.A4           Copy of payment calculation sheet issued by Op1 to complainant

Ex.A5           Copy of receipt bearing No.06120 dated 31.10.2010 for Rs.2,50,000/-

Ex.A6           Copy of receipt bearing No.760 dated 30.12.2010 for Rs.2,70,000/-

Ex.A7           Copy of receipt bearing No.064 dated 30.12.2010 for Rs.80,000/-

Ex.A8           Copy of receipt bearing No.1043 dated 21.02.2011 for Rs.2,00,000/-

Ex.A9           Copy of receipt bearing No.07526 dated 20.04.2011 for Rs.6,00,000/-

Ex.A10         Copy of receipt bearing No.1052 dated 20.04.2011 for Rs.6,00,000/-

Ex.A11         Brochure of Op1

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 297 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                        For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Suresh Babu                Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of OP
Cilimicoti, Complainant                                No.1).

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1           Copy of Customer Information Sheet of the complainant

Ex.A2           Copy of agreement of Reservation  dated 24.06.2011 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A3           Copy of receipt bearing No.06318 dated 09.12.2010 for Rs.50,000/-

Ex.A4           Copy of receipt bearing No.06563 dated 01.02.2011 for Rs.2,82,270/-

Ex.A5           Copy of receipt bearing No.07532 dated 26.04.2011 for Rs.2,00,000/-

Ex.A6           Copy of receipt bearing No.07596 dated 30.05.2011 for Rs.3,50,000/-

Ex.A7           Copy of receipt bearing No.08188 dated 29.06.2011 for Rs.3,50,000/-

Ex.A8           Copy of receipt bearing No.08098 dated 02.08.2011 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.A9           Copy of receipt bearing No.08269 dated 03.09.2011 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.A10         Copy of receipt bearing No.08281 dated 20.09.2011 for Rs.50,000/-

Ex.A11         Office copy of legal notice dated 02.03.2015 got issued by the complainants to the Opposite parties no.1 to 3

Ex.A12         Original Postal receipts and postal returned covers

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 67 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                        For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Smt K.Rajani                Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of OP
Kumari, Complainant No.1                           No.1).

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1           Copy of agreement of sale dated 03.07.2010 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A2           Copy of receipt bearing No.05535 dated 21.06.2010 for Rs.2,50,000/-

Ex.A3           Copy of receipt bearing No.05581         dated 07.07.2010 for Rs.2,58,605/-

Ex.A4           Copy of receipt bearing No.05600 dated 22.07.2010 for Rs.24,02,367/-

Ex.A5           Office copy of legal notice dated 30.08.2014 got issued by the complainants to the Opposite parties no.1 to 3

Ex.A6           Original Postal receipts and postal acknowledgements

Ex.A8           Original returned postal cover

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 80 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                        For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Aziz Mohammed           Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of OP
GPA of Complainant                                     No.1).

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1           Copy of agreement of sale dated 18.10.2011 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A2           Copy of receipt bearing No.08551 dated 15.08.2011 for Rs.20,75,000/-

Ex.A3           Office copy of legal notice dated 20.09.2014 got issued by the complainant to the Opposite parties no.1 to 3

Ex.A4           Copies of postal acknowledgements 

Ex.A5           Copy of GPA given by the complainant to Aziz Mohammed dated 31.03.2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 108 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                        For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  V.Ramachandra           Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of

Reddy, Complainant                                     Op1)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1           Copy of agreement  for Reservation of flat dated  14.07.2009 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A2           Copy of receipt bearing No.03124 dated 0404.2009 for Rs.5000/-

Ex.A3           Copy of receipt bearing No.03243 dated 20.04.2009 for Rs.2,45,000/-

Ex.A4           Copy of receipt bearing No.660 dated 12.07.2009 for Rs.20,00,000/-

Ex.A5           Copy of receipt bearing No.03588 dated 12.07.2009 for Rs.13,00,000/-

Ex.A6           Copy of receipt bearing No.639 dated 22.08.2009 for Rs.4,00,000/-

Ex.A7           Copy of receipt bearing No.03777 dated 22.08.2009 for Rs.3,00,000/-

Ex.A8           Copy of receipt bearing No.677 dated 20.09.2009 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.A9           Copy of complaint to PS Ramachandrapuram dated 16.03.2015

Ex.A10         Copy of FIR No.131/2015 dated 16.03.2015

Ex.A11         Office copy of legal notice dated 07.05.2015 got issued by the complainant to the Opposite parties no.1 to 3

Ex.A12         Original Postal receipts, acknowledgements and returned postal covers

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 201 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                        For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Prabhakar                    Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of

Nagaraj Heriuer, Complainant                      Op1)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1           Copy of agreement  of Sale  dated  13.07.2009  executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A2           Copy of Calculation sheet of the complainant issued by the Op1.

Ex.A3           Copy of email correspondence dated 19.03.2012

Ex.A4           Copy of authorization  issued by the complainant to one Mr.Prabhakar Nagarj Heriuer 3.10.2015

Ex.A5           Copy of General Power of Attorney issued to Prabhakar Nagaraj Heriuer dated 08.01.2016

Ex.A6           Office copy of legal notice dated 06.11.2015 got issued by the complainant to the Opposite parties no.1 to 3

Ex.A7           Original Postal receipts, acknowledgements and returned postal covers

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 219 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                        For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Dr.Kandala                  Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of

Venu, Complainant                                      Op1)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1           Copy of agreement  of Sale  dated  13.02.2009  executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A2           Copies of bunch of payment receipts (52 in nos.) made by the complainant to the opposite party no.1.

Ex.A3           Copy of letter dated 14.08.2013 addressed by the Op1 to the complainant

Ex.A4           Copy of agreement  of Sale  dated  01.05.2014  executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

For Opposite parties (common in all cases) :

Ex.B1          Copy of Lr.No.252931/4/2007 addressed by Principal Secretary to Government to Vice, Chairman, HUDA, Hyderabad for change of land use.

Ex.B2          Copy of G.O.Ms.No.288, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (I1) Department, dated 03.04.2008 (HMDA revised master plan).

Ex.B3          Copy of (report) Lr.No.D1/3601/2007, dated 05.05.2007 addressed by District Collector, Medak to Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, HUDA along with map.

Ex.B4          Copy of minutes of meeting of multi-storeyed building committee for HUDA area held on 29.02.2008 at 3-00 pm in the chambers of Vice-Chairman, HUDA (4 basements + Ground + 13 Upper Floors).

Ex.B5          Copy of Lr.No.1927/Misc/Plg/H/2008, dated 31.03.2008 addressed by HUDA to the Principal Secretary to Government for 30 meters road alignment in Sy.No.384 & 385.

Ex.B6          Copy of Lr.No.621/P4/Plg/HUDA/2008, dated 11.04.2008 addressed by HUDA to OP No.1 approving 4 basements + Ground + 13 upper floors).

Ex.B7          Copy of Lr.No.621/Pr/Plg/HUDA/ 2008, dated 11.04.2008 addressed by HUDA to Executive Authority, Tellapur Gram Panchayat according technical permission of residential apartments.

Ex.B8          Copy of minutes of meeting of multi-storeyed building committee for MSB in HUDA area held on 05.06.2008 at the chambers of Vice-Chairman, HUDA (4 basements + ground + 29 upper floors).

Ex.B9          Copy of Lr.No.621/P4/Plg/HMDA/2008, dated 14.10.2009 addressed by HMDA to the Executive Authority, Tellapur Gram Panchayat according technical permission of residential apartments (4 basements + ground + 20 upper floors).

Ex.B10         Copy of Lr.No.SEIAA/AP/MDK-14/08, dated 12.08.2008 addressed by State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Hyderabad to according environmental clearances to Opposite parties.

Ex.B11         Copy of Lr.No.19038/I1/2009, dated 24.11.2009 addressed by Principal Secretary to Government to Ops (clearance of GOMs.No.111).

Ex.B12         Copy of letter addressed by Opposite parties, dated 08.10.2010 to the HMDA, Hyd (revised application and plans for building permission consisting of 3 basement + ground + 29 upper floors).

Ex.B13         Copy of Lr.No.10186/MP1/Plg/HMDA dated 28.03.2011 addressed by HMDA to the Ops to pay publication charges for change of land use from residential to commercial.

Ex.B14         Copy of cash acknowledgement receipt bearing No.825631 for Rs.1,000/- in File No.2011-2-431 for new water connection.

Ex.B15         Copy of Certificate of best compliments issued by Indian Green Building Council in favour of the Opposite parties company.

Ex.B16         Copy of certificate of best compliments awarded by Cityscape in favour of the Opposite parties company.

Ex.B17         Copy of letter addressed by the Opposite parties to the purchaser by name S.Pragathi intimating to take possession of the flat, dated 02.11.2015.

Ex.B18         Copies of photographs of flat occupants occupying the completed flats.

PRESIDENT                              MEMBER

Dated: 23.02.2017