STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

OF TELANGANA : AT HYDERABAD

CC NO. 321 OF 2014

Between :

1.  Mrs Somdutta Banerjee W/o Raja Benerjee

Aged about 38 yrs, Occ: Business

2. Raja Benerjee S/o Susanta Benerjee

Aged about 41 years, Occ: Associate Professor

IIT (Hyderabad)

Both are R/o Flat No.G3, Mythri Homes

Pranaam Hospital Lane, Madinaguda

Hyderabad -500 049

                                                                                      …Complainants

          A N D

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

Tellapur, Hyderabad-500 032

Rep. by its Managing Director

Hari Challa

2. State Bank of India

Gandhi Nagar Branch

Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad

Rep. by its asst. General Manager                                                                                                                                          … Opposite Parties

CC NO.20 OF 2015

Between :

1. Sadanand Tumma S/o Dayanand Tumma

Aged about 42 years, Occ: Software Engineer

2. Mrs Anitha Sadanand Tumma W/o Sadanand Tumma

Aged about 37 years, Occ: House wife

Both are R/o 3-6-913/1, Dattanagar

Narayanguda, Hyderabad

                                                                                      …Complainants

          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)

4)       Corporation Bank
          Dr.No.1-98/11/2, Plot No.59

          Arunodaya Colony, Madhapur Branch

          Hyderabad-500 081

          Rep. by its Branch Manager

                                                                                       … Opposite Parties

CC NO.31 OF 2015

Between :

1. Manish Bhatia S/o Mr.Ramesh Bhatia

Aged about 40 years, Occ: Software Engineer

2. Mrs Yogita Bhatia W/o Manish Bhatia

Aged about 40 years, Occ: Home Maker

Both are R/o Apartment No.76, Block Primrose

L&T Serene Country, Telecom Nagar, Gachibowli

Hyderabad-500 032

                                                                                      …Complainants

          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)

4)       State Bank of India,

          Gandhinagar Branch, Gandhinagar
          Hyderabad-500 080

Rep. by its Branch Manager                       … Opposite Parties

CC NO.32 OF 2015

Between :

1. Srinivasu Oggu S/o Venkateswarlu

Aged about 48 years,

Occ: Engineer Senior Project Manager

2. Mrs Srilakshmi Maturi W/o Sreenivasu Oggu

Aged about 43 years, 

Both are R/o Flat No.308, Lantana Block

Bhanu Township, Miyapur, Hyderabad

                                                                                      …Complainants

          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)

4)       State Bank of India,

          Abids Circle Branch

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Abids, Hyderabad-500 001

                             … Opposite Parties

CC NO.54 OF 2015

Between :

1. Srinivas Rahul Peyyeti S/o Srikrishna Peyyeti

Aged about 42 years, Occ: Merchant Navy

Presently R/o in 23-A, Lords Street, presently

R/o 23-A, Lords Street, Fleet Wood, FY7

6DX, Lancshire, UK, rep. by his wife GPA Holder

Mrs Anju Singh Peyyeti W/o Srinivas Rahul Peyyeti

Aged about 42 yrs, Occ: House Wife R/o F.No.203

Himavathi Apartments, Street No.8, Habsiguda,

Hyderabad – 500 007

2. Mrs Anju Singh Peyyeti

W/o Srinivas Rahul Peyyeti

Aged about 42 years, Occ: Housewife

R/o F.No.F-203, HImavathi Apts.,

Street No.8, Habsiguda,

Hyderabad-500 007

                                                                                      …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)

4)       State Bank of India

          Rep. by its Asst. General Manager

          RACPC, Branch

          Hyderabad-500 003

                             … Opposite Parties

CC NO.57 OF 2015

Between :

1. Debashish Mishra S/o M.P.Mishra

Aged about 35 years, Occ: Service

2. Mrs Preethi Mishra W/o Debashish Mishra

Aged about 36 years, Occ: HR, 

Both are R/o 6-3-1102, Manjari Apartments

Flat No.204, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 082

                                                                                      …Complainants

          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)

4)       State Bank of India

          Patny Centre Branch

          Secunderabad-500 003

          Rep. by its Branch Manager

                             … Opposite Parties

CC NO.58 OF 2015

Between :

1. Rajiv Lahiri S/o Rahul Lahiri

Aged about 36 years, Occ: IT Manager

2. Mrs Chalourmi Mukherjee W/o Rajiv Lahiri

Aged about 35 years, Occ: Sr.Analyst IT

Both are R/o Plot No.26, New Friends Colonyu

Phase-II, Hyderguda, Attapur, Hyderabad-500 048

                                                                                      …Complainants

          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)

4)       Corporation Bank
          Madhapur Branch, 1-98/11/2

          Plot No.59, Arunodaya Colony

          Hyderabad-500 081

          Rep. by its Branch Manager

                             … Opposite Parties

CC NO.113 OF 2015

Between :

1. Prathipati Rama Rao S/o P.Swamy

Aged about 46 yrs, Occ: LIC Development Officer

2. Mrs P.Lakshmi Kantha Sarojini

W/o P.Rama Rao, aged about 43 yrs, Occ:Housewife

Both are R/o 1-7-1259, Flat No. A2

Siri Enclave, Advocates Colony

Hanamkonda, Warangal 

                                                                                      …Complainants

          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)

4)       State Bank of Hyderabad

          Rep. by its Branch Manager

          Vikrampuri Branch, HACP Colony

          Near Secunderabad Club

          Secunderabad

                             … Opposite Parties

CC NO.118 OF 2015

Between :

1. Lalitha  Ponuganti W/o Balaji Eranti

Aged about 37 years, Occ: Software Engineer

2. Balaji Eranti S/o Venkata Chalapathy

Aged about 36 years, Occ: Software Engineer

Both are R/o Flat No.B-12 ASPEN WOODS

Doddakammanahalli Main Road, Off: Bannerghatta Road

Hulimavu, Gengaluru, Karnataka -560 083

                                                                                      …Complainants

          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)

4)       Bank of India

          Rep. by its Asst. General Manager

          AP Police Academy Branch

          Hyderabad

                             … Opposite Parties

CC NO.119 OF 2015

Between :

 Nissenkarao Gurnadha Chandra Sekhar

S/o N.Mallikharjuna Rao, aged about 44 years

Occ: IT Professional R/o 5-85/1, Manjeera Road

Chanda Nagar, 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)

4)       State Bank of Hyderabad

          Re p. by its Branch Manager

          Chandanagar Branch

          Hyderabad-500 019

                             … Opposite Parties

CC NO.141 OF 2015

Between :

1.  Singh Chane S/o late KS Chane

Aged about 36 years

2. Mrs Jyotinder Kaur Chane W/o Manmohan Singh Chane

Aged about 35 years,

Both are R/o # 910, 9^th Floor, Aurum Tower

Sy.No.30 & 31, PBEL City, Peeran Cheruvu Village,

Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

                                                                                      …Complainants

          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)

4)       Corporation Bank

          Rep. by its Branch Manager

          Madhapur Branch, 1-98/11/2,

          Plot No.59, Arunodaya Colony

          Hyderabad-500 081

                             … Opposite Parties

CC NO.155 OF 2015

Between :

 Mrs Nitya Singh W/o Chandra Shekhar Singh

Aged 32 years, Occ: Software Engineer

R/o E2401, Mantri Celestia, Near Wipro Circle

Nanakramguda, Hyderabad-500 032

                                                                                      …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)

4)       State Bank of India

          Rep. by its Branch Manager

          PBB Abids Branch

          Hyderabad-500 001

                             … Opposite Parties

CC NO.163 OF 2015

Between :

1. Mr.Saroj Kumar S/o Ram Ahlad Rai

Aged about 33 years, Occ: Merchant Navy

2. Mrs Pallavi Singh W/o Saroj Kumar

Aged about 28 years, Occ: HR Consultant

Both are R/o 503, A Block Western Plaza Apts.,

Opp: OU Colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad-500 008

                                                                                      …Complainants

          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)

4)       Allahabad Bank

          Rep. by its Branch Manager

          Secunderabad Branch

          Secunderabad-500 003

                             … Opposite Parties

CC NO.170 OF 2015

Between :

1. Sunil Kumar Jaiswal S/o Mohan Lal

Aged about 34 years, Occ: Sr.Consultant

2. Mrs Bhavna Gurgela W/o Sunil Kumar Jaiswal

Aged about 30 years, Occ: House Wife

Both ar R/o Flat No.S-103, Saffire Block

Jai Sri Devi Homes, Hafeezpet, Miyapur

Hyderabad-500 050

                                                                                      …Complainants

          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)

4)       Bank of India

          Rep. by its Branch Manager

          APPA Branch, Hyderabad-500 008

                             … Opposite Parties

CC NO.179 OF 2015

Between :

1. Lalit Narayan Mahapatra S/o late Gadadhar Mahapatra

Aged about 40 years, Occ: Defence Personnel

2. Mrs Priyadarshini Mahapatra W/o Lalit Narayan Mahapatra

Aged about 39 years, Occ: Housewife

Both are R/o Selectin Centre Central

C/o 56APO, PIN:900236

                                                                                      …Complainants

          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)

4)       State Bank of India

          Gandhinagar Branch
          Hyderabad-500 080

          Rep. by its Branch Manager

                             … Opposite Parties

CC NO.53 OF 2016

Between :

Vasa Sanjeeva Reddy S/o Vasa Nehru

Aged about 35 years, Occ: Consultant

R/o K 1202, Aparna Sarovar,

Nallagandla, Lingampally

Hyderabad-500 046

                                                                                       …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)

4)       Bank of India

          Rep. by its Branch Manager

          AP Police Academy Branch

          Himayath Nagar, Golconda PO

          Hyderabad-500 005

                             … Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainant:           Sri V.Gourisankara Rao, Advocate

                                                          Sri D.Raji Reddy, Advocate

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:            M/s  P.Rajasripathi Rao   
No.1 to 3                                          

Counsel for the Opp.Party No.4:        M/s Dyumani (CC20,58 & 141/15), Sri Hari
                                                          Prasad,(CC321/14,31,54&179/15)
                                                          Sri Prabhakar Sharma (CC32,155/15) M/s
                                                        Vinoda Devi(CC 170,53 & 118/15) Sri
                                                          Ch.Govardhan Rao (CC57/15), Sri
                                                          K.Narayan Rao, (CC113&119/15),  
                                                          & Sri B.Damodhar Reddy, (CC163/15)
                                                         

QUORUM             :

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

AND

SRI VITHAL RAO PATIL, MEMBER 

WEDNESDAY THE FIFTEENTH 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 they are disposed of by common order.   The complaint,  C.C.No.20/2015 is taken as the 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 multi-storied 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’ and obtained permission bearing No.HUDA/621/P4/PLG/HUDA/2008 and they would provide all amenities therefor, would give possession by the end of November/December, with certain 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, as detailed 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. 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 got issued the legal notice, to which there was no response.  The Complainants had sought for return of the amount with interest, compensation and costs of the complaint, in each case, as detailed below.

          The Complainants also sought to repay the home loan owed by them to the Opposite party bank with necessary interest and other charges as levied.

5.                 The Complainants are paying monthly instalments and interest on the amount obtained by way of home loan besides rent to the house where they are staying at present.  Due to the fraudulent actions on the part of the opposite parties, complainants suffered with mental agony, escalation of cost and physically by wandering in and around the office of the opposite parties for the past few years, for which, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation as claimed in the table shown above.  Hence, the complaint with a prayer to direct the opposite parties  to comply with the above reliefs, as detailed in the table shown above. 

6.                 The Opposite parties promised to deliver the possession of the flat to the Complainants as prescribed in the agreement of sale with some grace   period.      Having agreed to purchase the above flats, Complainants entered into Agreement of sale with the Opposite party No.1 paying the earnest money and also by obtaining home loan from the OP No.4 bank and got disbursed the amount.  

7.                 The Complainants opted for pre-EMI scheme, as such, OP No.1 shall pay the pre-EMI on behalf of the complainants till the date of possession of the flat in pursuance of the Tripartite Agreements entered into between the parties.  The Complainants are compelled to pay the monthly loan instalments amount to opposite party No.4 bank.  The opposite parteis 1 to 3 have failed to commence even the base/pillar footing works at the site in respect of the subject flats, as such, Complainants requested for cancellation of the booking and sought for refund of the amount.  Hence, prayed to allow the complaint as prayed for, supra in the table shown above.

8.                The Opposite parties 1 to 3 resisted the claim on the premise that the complainants filed the complaint to gain out of their breach of contract and the complaint is not maintainable in view of there being no consumer dispute and the arbitration clause mentioned in the agreement of sale providing for settlement of disputes by means of arbitration process. 

9.                 The Opposite parties submitted that originally the land in Sy.No.384 was an agricultural land and they filed application for conversion of the same into non-agricultural land on 23.10.2006 and FTL clearance was granted on 30.12.2006.  Permission was granted on 14.04.2007 for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land and thereafter HUDA earmarked the land as agricultural zone and the Opposite parties have filed application for change of use of the land as commercial use zone.

10.               It is averred by Opposite parties that Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I) Department notified the land in Sy.No.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 Sy.No.384 is made.  Realignment of the proposed road was approved on 03.04.2008 and permission was accorded approving the building plan on 11.04.2008.  Opposite parties have obtained NoC from the A.P. Fire Services Department on 15.12.2007 and subsequently it was reduced from 91.40 meters to 90.40 meters.  After following due procedure and process, the Opposite parties obtained NoC from Airports Authority on 10.07.2009.

11.               It is further averred that HUDA accorded technical approval on 14.10.2009 for ground + 20 floors and release of building permission upto 29 floors is awaited.  In view of arbitration clause in the agreement the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the same has to be referred for arbitration as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.  That they have taken necessary steps to complete the project.  The project is a massive project and due to reasons beyond their control, the Opposite parties could not complete the project within the time frame and they informed the complainant that the project required sanction from statutory authorities and mentioned the same as ‘force majeure’ in the agreement of sale.  It also agreed to pay compensation at agreed rate to maintain goodwill and relationship with the customers.

12.               It is stated that for the delay, the Opposite parties have agreed to pay Rs.3/- per sq.ft. in terms of clause VIII(g) of the Agreement for the delay caused in completing the project and they agreed to adjust the amount towards dues payable by the complainant.  The delay was only due to Telangana agitation, Sakala Janula Samme, etc., The complainant filed the complaint with ulterior motive to defame the opposite parties.  The Complainant shall file relevant receipts and documents to prove the payments.

13.               They denied to have not given any response.  The Opposite parties are taking all necessary steps to deliver the flats at the earliest.  The Complainant is not entitled for any compensation and their claim is illegal.  The complainant is not entitled for refund of amount and interest thereon and any compensation and costs.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties.  Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

14.              The opposite party no.4 in C.C.No.20 of 2015 filed reply by way of memo   resisting the case.   The complainants have approached the bank for availing loan for purchase of flats.   Basing on the necessary loan and security documents     it (the bank) had agreed to sanction loan as per the norms.   The complainant no.1 by his letter dated 21.08.2010 requested the opposite party no.4 to disburse part of the loan amount i.e., Rs.17,67,502/- to the opposite party and accordingly it had disbursed the same.     The complainants  are estopped to contend that the opposite party no.4 should have co-related the loan disbursement with the progress of the construction in accordance with the progress of Sec.4 and 5 of the AP Apartment (Promotion of Construction and Ownership Act, 1987) and the opposite party no.4 violated the same and committed unfair practice.  The complainant paid the entire loan amount on 17.05.2013 and the account was closed    Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

 15.              During the course of enquiry, the Complainant got filed evidence affidavit on their behalf and also got marked the documents as exhibits.  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.  On behalf of the opposite party no.4 no affidavit or documents have been filed. 

16.               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.

17.               The points for consideration are :

1. 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 ?

18.               POINT NO.1 :  The Complainants entered into “Agreement of Sale” with the Opposite party No.1 for purchase of flats and paid the consideration amount as detailed in the above shown above.  A tripartite agreement was also executed by the Complainants and Ops.  The agreement of sale provides reference to arbitration.  The learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 have contended that in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement, the Complainants cannot maintain the complaint before this Commission.  Clause XVIII of the Agreement of sale provides for deciding the disputes arising under the agreement by arbitration proceeds.

19.               In terms of the agreement of sale, the dispute has to be decided by means of arbitration.  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.”

For the above reasons, the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite parties.

20.               In the arguments, counsel for Complainants reiterated the same facts as averred in the complaint besides stating that the Opposite parties 1 to 3 ought to have acted in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act & Rules, 1987 while undertaking such agreements and hence pleading ‘force majeure’ does not arise. 

21.               On the other hand, the counsel for the Opposite parties 1 to 3 in the arguments submitted that as per agreement, if the Complainants wants to cancel the booking of the flat, they shall forego 10% of the total flat cost as charges which is agreed by them.  In the case on hand, there is no provision for refund of earnest money.  Admittedly, on failure to comply with terms and conditions of agreed terms by the Opposite parties 1 to 3, the Complainants sought for refund of the amount.  Hence, this Commission does not find any merit in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for Opposite parties 1 to 3.  Though averments are made against the Opposite party No.4 in the complaint, no relief is sought against it by the Complainants.

22.               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 383, 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 & conditions agreed upon and consented thereof and as per specifications given thereto. 

23.               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 this complaint is concerned.  The opposite parties have attributed the delay to the authorities concerned in granting permission and NoC 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.  The Opposite parties 1 to 3 stated the reasons for the delay in completion of the construction of the residential complex as under:

“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 and even mentioned in the agreement of sale under clause No.XIV and described as “force majure”.  The above referred facts mentioned squarely fall under the said clause.  Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Commission as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opp. party in executing the project and if the complainant wants to cancel her booking she can do so in conformity with terms of agreement only.”

24.               The complainants have submitted that owing to failure of the opposite parties 1 to 3 in completing the construction of the flats, they opted for cancellation of the agreement of sale of flat and the opposite parties 1 to 3 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 also got issued notice setting forth series of events of delay and negligence and false promises made by the Opposite parties 1 to 3 seeking for refund of the amount on the premise of inaction on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3.

25.               The opposite parties 1 to 3 have promised to complete construction of the flat and hand over its possession to the complainants  as prescribed in the agreement of sale with certain grace period as agreed and on their failure to perform their part of contract, the opposite parties 1 to 3 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. 

26.               Not keeping 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. 

27.               The complainant contends that contrary to the terms of agreement and also various guidelines for releasing loan amounts, the bank has released the entire amount in one go without considering the stages of construction to the detriment of his interest. The bank can directly pay the amount to the developer as agreed upon but not whole of the amount without even verifying the stages of construction and existence of property. It could not have released the amount without verifying the progress of construction jeopardising their claims. By referring to project programme guide lines where there was specific reference that the developer should be in business for not less than 5 years and the builder/developer has history of due completion of 3 projects and it should have completed at least 1,00,000 sft. of built up area, and that without satisfying the eligibility criterion, the bank could not have sanctioned Advance Disbursement Facility (ADF for short).

28.               The OP No.4 bank contends that by virtue of tripartite agreement, the developer has to indemnify the bank in cases of this nature, where under, it was specifically mentioned that :

“The Builder agrees to demand payment from the Bank towards the cost of the Flat strictly as per the stage of construction of the Flat agreed to be sold to the Borrower and it will be responsibility of the Borrower to verify the stage of construction.

Immediately upon receipt of the loan amount sanctioned to the Borrower, the Builder agrees to execute and register a valid conveyance in favour of the Borrower and deliver the original Sale Deed after its registration directly to the Bank.  In this context, the Borrower irrevocably authorises the Builder to deliver the original Sale Deed directly to the bank.”

The developer and complainant are jointly liable for any of the claims for the loan amount disbursed. In the light of above clause, they are estopped from making any claim. In order to get over the payment of the amount towards EMI they were impleaded as parties. It is only a financial institution facilitating funding of the project and purchase thereof. It has nothing to do with the completion of construction.

29.               In contravention of the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India from time to time and tripartite agreement, the bank disbursed the loan amount. It is not known why the bank had taken such a stance when the guidelines stipulate to release the amount stage wise. The fact remains that the bank released the amounts to the developer contrary to guidelines. 

30.               There would be no meaning in releasing the entire amount in one go, without watching the progress of construction work.  This would cause unjust enrichment to the developer, and loss to the complainant. The terms of the agreement in between three parties were made in order to see that no party suffers from non-implementation of terms of the agreement. The bank cannot act at its own whims and fancies, and release the amount.

31.               If the bank acts contrary to the guidelines, the complainant is not liable to refund the amount paid to the developer. The bank can as well recover from the developer by recoursing the above clauses. The courts will not come to the rescue of the party which violates the terms and conveys benefits to one party in preference to another. It intends to cause loss to a genuine borrower by unduly favouring a defaulting and unfair customer. All this amounts to unfair trade practice.

32.               However, the very property which the complainants sought to purchase was a non-existent property kept as primary security. It also extended the loan on deposit of equitable mortgage though there was a mention that if equitable mortgage is not possible it would be by registered mortgage deed. The bank alleges that loan was sanctioned taking the property as security which the complainant intends to purchase from the developer besides on the instruction of the complainant. When the bank knew full well that the property was non-existent and no doubt document was executed in favour of the complainant by the developer in order to create equitable mortgage, disbursing the loan amount to the developer cannot be said to be valid. Considering the nature of transaction between the parties, we are of the opinion that the bank could not have disbursed the amount without taking proper care and caution to find out the non-existence of the flat for which loan was sanctioned.

33.               The banks and financial institutions promising to lend monies or sanctioning loans and the borrower investing in the project will be clothed by the principles of Promissory Estoppel. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an evolving doctrine, contours of which are not yet fully and finally demarcated. Being an equitable doctrine, it should be kept elastic enough in the hands of the court to do complete justice between the parties. If the equity demands that the promissor is allowed to resile and the promisee is compensated appropriately that ought to be done. If, however, equity demands that the promissor should be precluded in the light of things done by the promisee on the faith of representation from resiling and that he should be held fast to his representation, that should be done. It is a matter holding scales even between the parties to do justice between them. This is the equity implicit in the doctrine vide State of H.P. Vs. Ganesh Wood Products reported in 1995 (6) SCC 363.

34.               It is legally open to the bank to take a decision in good faith in the exercise of its bonafide discretion as to whether it was safe to make advances of public monies to any particular party and arrive at a decision after examining the relevant facts and circumstances. The bank did not act in good faith nor had it exercised bonafide discretion while releasing the funds.

35.               Recourse can be had to a decision in Nannapaneni Venkata Rao Co-operative Sugars Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India reported in AIR 2003 AP 515 (DB) it was held :

“Refusal on the part of the respondent bank to pay interest on the ground that opening of such account and crediting of the interest is not in accordance with the guidelines of RBI is not tenable as the respondent is solely responsible for suppressing the fact while entering into the contract.”

36.               This Commission can take judicial cognizance of the fact that the OP No.4 bank had financed the builder obviously in view of reputation the developer was having by then, and the bank contrary to the terms of the agreement as well as guidelines, disbursed the amounts keeping the interests of the complainant in jeopardy. The banks are picking and choosing certain clauses and contending that the very complainant have given authorization to them to release the amount and therefore they have released, forgetting the fact that the very financing of the project was contrary to the scheme issued in this regard. Evidently, the bank as well as the developer benefitted from these transactions. The developer has taken the amount without constructing the flat, and equally the bank has been collecting the amounts from the complainant towards EMI. It is a case of double jeopardy. Necessarily all this amounts to unfair trade practise as well as deficiency in service on the part of developer as well as the bank. Necessarily the complainant is to be compensated. Since terms of the agreement enable the bank to collect from the developer, it can as well recover the same. The bank by violating its own rules cannot take advantage and recover the same from the complainant.

37.               The bank has undoubtedly violated the guidelines and released the amount even without bothering to verify as to the stage and nature of construction. In other words, the bank financed a non-existent project or incomplete project, duping its own customer. If the bank releases the amounts contrary to the guidelines, it has to suffer for the consequential losses. Whatever loss caused thereby it could as well approach appropriate forum for recovery of the amount from the developer, to which it has released the amount in one go. The bank under the terms entitled to recover from the developer to which it had paid the amounts. It cannot turn round and claim against the complainant. It is not under original stipulation that the bank had to pay the entire amount to the developer. The developer also agreed to refund the amount if there are cancellations of the agreements or failure to fulfil its commitments. The agreement that was arrived at earlier was fair and no party would benefit from the lapses or mistakes of the other. Therefore, the complainant is not liable to pay the equated monthly instalments.

38.               The bank has to collect the loan amount plus whatever interest and other legally permissible charges from the developer and credit it to the complainant’s loan account. It shall not collect further EMI’s nor entitled to any more amount except the amount, if any, remained unpaid by the complainant towards loan granted to him. The bank has no authority to complain to CIBIL. In fact, if there is a provision, the CIBIL has to enter the name of the bank, as one of the violators of guidelines of the banks.  For the reasons stated supra, the Points No.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite parties.

39.               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 pay the amounts to the Complainants.

40.              It is very pertinent to mention here though an amount of Rs.21,61,377/- is claimed towards refund of the amount in CC No.179/2015 in the pleadings, however, no receipts or any proof of payment- there for are filed. 

41.               In the result, the complaints a re 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.  Time for compliance: four weeks.

C.C. NO.321/2014

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.29,78,600/- (as per receipts bearing Ex.A3 to A5, calculation sheet of Opno.1  and as per the admission of the Op no.2 in its evidence affidavit)    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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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.

C.C. NO.20/2015

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.23,15,340/-( as per Exs.A4 to A6)  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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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.

C.C. NO.31/2015

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.17,66,153/-( as per Exs.A2 and A3 and as per the admission of Op No.4 in its evidence affidavit )  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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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.

C.C. NO.32/2015

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.17,28, 671/-( as per Exs.A2 to A5)   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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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.

C.C. NO.54/2015

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.21,94,162/-( as per Exs.A2 to A5)   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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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.

C.C. NO.57/2015

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.21,90,330/-( as per Exs.A1, the agreement of sale and the admission of Op No.4 in its evidence affidavit)   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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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.

C.C. NO.58/2015

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.20,17,861/-( as per Exs.A2 to A5)     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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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.

C.C. NO.113/2015

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.22,92,594/-( as per Exs.A2  and admission of Op4 in its written version)     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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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.

C.C. NO.118/2015

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.32,99,559/-( as per Exs.A9 to A12 and admission of Op4 in its evidence affidavit)     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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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.

C.C. NO.119/2015

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.21,06,943/-( as per Exs.A2, A3 and Ex.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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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.

 C.C. NO.141/2015

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.23,90,844/-( as per Exs.A2 to A5 and the admission of the Op4 in its written version)     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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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.

C.C. NO.155/2015

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.18,34,620/-( as per Exs.A2 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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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.

C.C. NO.163/2015

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.46,82,137/-( as per receipts Exs.A2 to 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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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.

C.C. NO.170/2015

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.22,80,328/-( as per Exs.A2 receipt, Ex.A5 Bank statement of the complainant and admission of the Op4 in its written version)   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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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.

C.C. NO.179/2015

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.20,12,277/-( as per Exs.A2 to A4 receipts and the admission of Op4 in his evidence affidavit)   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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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.

C.C. NO.53/2016

(i)       In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.27,62,788/-( as per receipts Ex.A2, A6 and  as per the admission of Op4 in his evidence affidavit)    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)       Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.

iii)      In case sale deed was executed, the complainant 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: 15.02.2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 321 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Mrs Somdutta Benerjee,           Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of OP
 Complainant no.1                                                      No.1).

                                                                                    Sri P.Ramesh Kumar as RW2 ( on behalf of
                                                                                    Op. no.2

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 28.12.2010 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A2               Copy of SBI Home Loan sanctioned letter dated 10.01.2011 issued by SBI to the complainant

Ex.A3               Copy of receipt bearing No.05838 dated 12.12.2010 for Rs.60,000/-

Ex.A4               Copy of receipt bearing No.06407 dated 16.12.2010 for Rs.1,90,000/-

Ex.A5               Copy of receipt bearing No.06660 dated 20.01.2010 for Rs.8,41,664/-

Ex.A6               Copy of letter dated: nil addressed by the Op to the complainant requesting to arrange for the payment of Rs.17,87,436/-

Ex.A7               Copy of statement of price of flat no.1641

Ex.A8               Copy of statement of price of flat No.2175/station 12

Ex.A9               Copy of statement of price of flat No.2634/Station No.6

Ex.A10             Copy of email dated 25.12.2010 sent by the complainant and also the reply of the opposite party dated 25.12.2010

Ex.A11             Copy of email dated 21.05.2012 

Ex.A12             Copy of email dated 01.08.2013 sent by the Op no.1 to the complainant no.2 showing quarterly site updates

Ex.A13             Copy of email dated 13.09.2013 sent by the Op no.1 to the complainant no.2 showing price sheet

Ex.A14             Copy of email dated 1l7.07.2014 sent by the Op no.1 to the complainant no.2 showing flat handovers update

Ex.A15             Calculation statement of the complainant. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 20 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Sadanand Tumma,       Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of OP
Complainant no.1                                                       No.1).

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 09.08.2010 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainants

Ex.A2               Copy of Sale Deed dated 16.08.2012 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainants

Ex.A3               Copy of construction agreement dated 16.08.2012 in between the Op. no.1 and the complainants

Ex.A4               Copy of receipt bearing No.05734 dated 05.-8.2010 for Rs.2,50,000/-

Ex.A5               Copy of receipt bearing No.06733 dated 24.08.2010 for Rs.17,67,502/-

Ex.A6               Copy of receipt bearing No.10894 dated 10-.08.2012 for Rs.2,97,838/-

Ex.A7               Copy of Credit Sanction Intimation by the opposite party no.4 to the complainants

Ex.A8               Copy of certificate issued by the opposite party no.4 with regard to  home loan details.

Ex.A9               Copy of registration certificate dated 18.08.2012

Ex.A10             Copy of Statement of Account of the complainant from 01.04.2010 to 31.12.2010

Ex.A11             Copy of email dated 18.02.2013 sent by the Ops to the complainants

Ex.A12             Copy of legal notice dated 16.01.2015 got issued by the complainants to the Ops

Ex.A13             Copies of postal receipts

Ex.A14             Copy of net tracking of Indian Post Offices

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 31 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Manish Bhatia,                         Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of OPs
Complainant no.1                                                       Sri P.Ramesh Kumar as RW2 ( on behalf of
                                                                                    Op no.4

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 06.02.2010 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainants

Ex.A2               Copy of receipt bearing No.04533 dated 31.01.2010 for Rs.2,50,000/-

Ex.A3               Copy of receipt bearing No.04909 dated 13.03.2010 for Rs.27,435/-

Ex.A4               Copy of letter dated 18.02.2010 addressed by Op no.1 to the complainant no.1 undertaking that it will protect the price offered to him.

Ex.A5               Copy of letter dated 26.04.2010 addressed by Op no.4 informing the complainants that the account is operative at Gandhinagar Branch. 

Ex.A6               Copy of statement of account of the complainants from 01.04.2010 to 24.04.2011

Ex.A7               Copy of email dated 25.01.2015 sent by the Op no.1 to the complainants.

Ex.A8               Office copy of legal notice dated   13.01.2015 got issued by the complainants to the Opposite parties

Ex.A9               Original postal receipts and postal acknowledgements

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 32 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Srinivasu Oggu,                        Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of OPs
Complainant no.1                                                       Sri Khaja Zaheer Ahmed as RW2 ( on behalf
                                                                                    of Op no.4)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 08.02.2010 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainants

Ex.A2               Copy of receipt bearing No.04331 dated 29.11.2009 for Rs.2,50,000/-

Ex.A3               Copy of receipt bearing No.04655 dated 31.01.2010 for Rs.3,00,000/-

Ex.A4               Copy of receipt bearing No.05440 dated 10.04.2010 for Rs.10,90,800/-

Ex.A5               Copy of receipt bearing No.06004 dated 12.09.2010 for Rs.87,871/-

Ex.A6               Copy of home loan sanctioned letter dated 08.04.2010 fo Op no.4

Ex.A7               Copy of certificate of Insurance dated 04.05.2010

Ex.A8               Copy of Statement of Account of the complainant from09.04.2010 to 24.01.2015

Ex.A9               Office Copy of legal notice dated 19.01.2015 got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties no.1 to 3.

Ex.A10             Original postal receipts and postal acknowledgements

For Opposite party No.4

Ex.B19             Copy of Housing Loan Application Form of the complainants dated 15.02.2010

Ex.B20             Copy of arrangement letter dated 08.04.2010 of the Op no.4

Ex.B21             Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 10.04.2010 between the complainants, Ops

Ex.B22             Copy of letter dated 10.04.2010 addressed by the complainants to Op no.4 requesting to make arrangement of payment of Rs.14,88,366/-

Ex.B23             Copy of true extract of statement of housing loan dated 28.04.2010 of the complainants

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 54 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Srinivas Rahul,                         Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of Ops)
Complainant no.1                                                       Sri P.Ramesh Kumar as RW2 ( on behalf
                                                                                    of Op no.4)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 29.11.2010 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainants

Ex.A2               Copy of receipt bearing No.06305 dated 25.11.2010 for Rs.2,50,000/-

Ex.A3               Copy of receipt bearing No.05911 dated 02.12.2010 for Rs.1,50,000/-

Ex.A4               Copy of receipt bearing No.07263 dated 22.02.2011 for Rs.3,31,387/-

Ex.A5               Copy of receipt bearing No.06004 dated 12.09.2010 for Rs.14,62,775/-

Ex.A6               Copy of Tripartite Agreement between the Ops no.1 to 3,  complainants and Op4

Ex.A7               Copy of home loan sanctioned letter dated 24.02.2011 of Op no.4

Ex.A8               General Power of Attorney dated 20.01.2015

Ex.A9               Office Copy of legal notice dated 21.01.2015 got issued by the complainants to the opposite parties no.1 to 3

Ex.A10             Original Postal receipts and returned covers

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 57 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Debashis Mishra,                      Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of Ops)
Complainant no.1                                                       Sri P.Mallikarjuna Sarma as RW2 ( on behalf
                                                                                    of Op no.4)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 25.04.2009 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainants

Ex.A2               Copy of Amendment  of Agreement of Sale dated 14.09.2010

Ex.A3               Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 29.06.2009 in between Op1, complainants and Op4.

Ex.A4               Copy of home loan sanctioned letter dated 30.01.2009 of Op no.4

Ex.A5               Copy of home loan statement of complainants dated 30.01.2015

Ex.A6               Copy of Tripartite agreement dated 29.04.2011 between Op1, complainants and Op4

Ex.A7               Copy of home loan sanctioned letter dated 30.04.2011 of Op no.4

Ex.A8               Copy of Home loan statement dated 28.01.2015

Ex.A9               Office Copy of legal notice dated 13.01.2015 got issued by the complainants to the opposite parties no.1 to 3

Ex.A10             Original Postal receipts and returned covers

For Opposite party No.4

Ex.B19             Copy of  Bank Statement of Housing Loan from 11.07.2009 to 02.05.2011

Ex.B20             Copy of  Bank Statement of Housing Loan from 30.04.2011 to 28.01.2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 58 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Rajiv Lahiri,                  Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of Ops)
Complainant no.1                                          

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 24.12.2010 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainants

Ex.A2               Copy of receipt bearing No.06188 dated 15.12.2010 for Rs.1,50,000/-

Ex.A3               Copy of receipt bearing No.06435 dated 31.12.2010 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.A4               Copy of receipt bearing No.06860 dated 10.01.2011 for Rs.15,17,861/-

Ex.A5               Copy of receipt bearing No.0634 dated 10.01.2011 for Rs.2,50,000/-

Ex.A6               Copy of Credit Sanction Intimation of Op4

Ex.A7               Copy of Home Loan Certificate Provisional

Ex.A8               Office copy of legal notice dated 27.01.2015 got issued by the complainants to the Opposite parties no.1 to 3

Ex.A9               Original Postal Receipts and Returned Postal Covers

For Opposite party No.4

Ex.B19             Agreement for Term Loans (Housing) dated 10.01.2011

Ex.B20             Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 10.01.2011 between Op1, complainants and Op no.4.

Ex.B21             Copy of letter addressed by the Ops to complainants requesting to make arrangement of payment of Rs.15,17,861/-

Ex.B22             Copy of letter dated 10.01.2011 addressed by the complainants to Op no.4 requesting to make arrangement of payment of Rs.15,17,861/-

Ex.B23             Bank Statement of Account from 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2011

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 113 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Prathipati Rama Rao,                Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of Ops)
Complainant no.1                                          

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 16.10.2012 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainants

Ex.A2               Copy of receipt dated 10.11.2012 for Rs.9,61,708/-

Ex.A3               Copy of receipt bearing No.07130 dated 29.08.2012 for Rs.2,50,000/-

Ex.A4               Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 16.11.2012 between opposite party no.1, complainants & Opposite party no.4

Ex.A5               Copy of Bank Statement of Account from 17.11.2012 to 09.06.2014 of the complainants

Ex.A6               Office copy of the legal notice dated 07.05.2015 got issued by the complainants to the Opposite parties no.1 to 3.

Ex.A7               Original Postal Receipts and postal acknowledgements

Ex.A8               Copy of police complaint given to the PS Ramachandrapuram dated  17.03.2015

For Opposite party No.4

Ex.B19             Copy of letter dated 10.01.2012 addressed by the complainants to Op no.4 requesting to make arrangement of payment of Rs.13,75,562/-

Ex.B20             Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 16.11.2011 between Op1, complainants and Op no.4.

Ex.B21             Bank Statement of Account from 01.11.2011 to 26.04.2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 118 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Mrs Lalitha Ponuganti,             Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of Ops)
Complainant no.1                                                      Smt Sita Mahalakshmi as RW2 ( on behalf  
                                                                                    Op4)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 04.07.2012 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainants

Ex.A2               Copy of Sale Deed dated 16.08.2012 executed by the Op1 to the complainants

Ex.A3               Copy of Construction Agreement dated 16.08.2012 between Op1 and the complainants

Ex.A4               Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 06.08.2012 between Op1, complainants and Opposite party no.4

Ex.A5               Copy of certificate of Encumbrance on property

Ex.A6               Copy of Sanction letter dated 4.8.2012 for Credit Limits above Rs.2 lakhs

Ex.A7               Copy of Bank Account Statement 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014

Ex.A8               Copy of IDBI Bank Account Statement from 01.06.2012 to 01.09.2012

Ex.A9               Copy of receipt No.10128 dated 02.06.2012 for Rs.50,000/-

Ex.A10             Copy of receipt No.10129 dated 02.06.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/-

Ex.A11             Copy of receipt No.10130 dated 02.06.2012 for Rs.8,07,815/-

Ex.A12             Copy of receipt No.10785 dated 10.08.2012 for Rs.3,90,567/-

Ex.A13             Copy of complaint given to the PS Ramachandrapuram dated 18.03.2015

Ex.A14             Copy of legal notice dated 13.04.2015 got issued by the complainants to the opposite parties no.1 to 3

Ex.A15             Original postal receipts, postal acknowledgements

Ex.A16             Statement of account of complainant no.1 issued by the Op1

 For Opposite party No.4

Ex.B19             Copy of demand letter for release of first disbursement given by the complainant dated 04.08.2012

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 119 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Nissenkarao Gurnadha,           Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of Ops)
Chandrasekhar, Complainant no.1                          

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 27.03.2012 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A2               Copy of receipt No.09758 dated 14.02.2012 for Rs.6,90,000

Ex.A3               Copy of receipt No.10095 dated 20.04.2012 for Rs.12,16,943/-

Ex.A4               Copy of Home Loan Sanction letter dated 16.04.2012

Ex.A5               Copy of email correspondence with the Ops no.1 to 3 dated 14.05.2014

Ex.A6               Office copy of legal notice dated 18.05.2015 got issued by the complainant to the Ops.

Ex.A7               Original postal receipts   and returned covers. 

Ex.A8               Copy of account statement with regard to payment of amounts by the complainant

For Opposite party No.4

Ex.B19             Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 19.04.2012 between the Op1, the complainant and the opposite party no.4

Ex.B20             Copy of Bank statement of account from 19.04.2012 to 13.01.2016 of the complainant

Ex.B21             Copy of Bank statement of account from 19.04.2012 to 13.01.2016 of the complainant

Ex.B22             Copy of Bank statement of account from 19.04.2012 to 13.01.2016 of the complainant

        APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 141 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                                               For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Manmohan Singh Chane,        Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of Ops)
Complainant no.1                                                                                                      

                                                            EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 27.01.2012 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A2               Copy of receipt No.09493 dated 27.01.2012 for Rs.2,50,000/-

Ex.A3               Copy of receipt No.09665 dated 03.02.2012 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.A4               Copy of receipt No.11273 dated 02.11.2012 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.A5               Copy of receipt No.11360 dated 30.11.2012 for Rs.50,000/-

Ex.A6               Copy of Home Loan Sanction letter dated

Ex.A7               Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 6.2.2012 between Op1, complainant and the opposite party no.4

Ex.A8               Bank Account statement of the complainant from 01.02.2012 to 31.03.2012

Ex.A9               Copy of complaint given to PS Ramachandrapuram dated 08.01.2015

Ex.A10             Copy of FIR dated 08.01.2015

Ex.A11             Copy of legal notice dated 06.02.2015 got issued by the complainant to Ops no.1 to 3

Ex.A12             Original Postal receipts and acknowledgements with returned covers.

For Opposite party No.4

Ex.B19             Agreement for Term Loans (Housing) dated 06.02.2012

Ex.B20             Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 06.02.2012 between Op1, complainants and Op no.4.

Ex.B21             Copy of letter dated 10.01.2011 addressed by the complainants to Op no.4 requesting to make arrangement of payment of Rs.18,90,844/-

Ex.B22             Bank Account Statement of the complainant from 01.01.2012 to 31.03.2012

        APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO. 155 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Nitya Singh,                  Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of Ops)
Complainant                                                   Sri Khaja Zaheer Ahmed as RW2 (on behalf of Op4)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 13.06.2009 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A2               Copy of receipt No.03392 dated 07.06.2009 for Rs.2,00,000/-

Ex.A3               Copy of receipt No.03576 dated 23.05.2009 for Rs.50,000/-

Ex.A4               Copy of receipt No.05664 dated 01.07.2010 for Rs.50,000/-

Ex.A5               Copy of receipt No.04977 dated 10.11.2010 for Rs.50,000/-

Ex.A6               Copy of receipt No.04976 dated 10.04.2010 for Rs.73,005/-

Ex.A7               Copy of receipt No.03673 dated 25.08.2009 for Rs.10,70,662/-

Ex.A8               Copy of receipt No.12779 dated 14.09.2013 for Rs.2,51,920/-

Ex.A9               Copy of receipt No.12780 dated 14.09.2013 for Rs.53,183/-

Ex.A10             Copy of receipt No.11699 dated 12.12.2013 for Rs.1,08,855/-

Ex.A11             Copy of sale deed dated 04.05.2010 executed by the OP1 in favour of complainant

Ex.A12             Copy of Construction Agreement dated 04.05.2010

Ex.A13             Office copy of legal notice dated 06.07.2015 got issued by the complainant to the Opposite parties no.1 to 3

Ex.A14             Original postal receipts and acknowledgements.      

For Opposite party No.4

Ex.B19             Copy of application for Housing Loan of the complainant dt.30.06.2009

Ex.B20             Copy of Arrangement letter of SBI Easy Home Loan dated 22.08.2009

Ex.B21             Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 2.8.2009

Ex.B22             Copy of letter dt.22.08.2009 addressed to Op4

Ex.B23             Copy of letter dt.22.08.2013 addressed to Op4

Ex.B24             Copy of request for disbursement of loan dated 04.08.2013

Ex.B25             Copy of Bank statement of account of the complainant from 10.08.2009 to 28.04.2016

CC NO. 163 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Saroj Kumar,                 Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of Ops)
Complainant                                                   Sri C.Sankara Rao as RW2 (on behalf of Op4)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 01.03.2013 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A2               Copy of receipt No.10982 dated 02.02.2013 for Rs.2,50,000/-

Ex.A3               Copy of receipt No.12260 dated 06.03.2013 for Rs.5,52,000/-

Ex.A4               Copy of receipt No.12261 dated 06.03.2013 for Rs.7,02,619/-

Ex.A5               Copy of receipt No.12208 dated 11.03.2013 for Rs.27,96,685/-

Ex.A6               Copy of receipt No.11944 dated 08.08.2013 for Rs.2,68,723/-

Ex.A7               Copy of receipt No.12238 dated 16.08.2013 for Rs.1,12,112/-

Ex.A8               Copy of Tripartite Agreement for housing loan dated 07.03.2013 between Op1, complainant and the Op4

Ex.A9               Copy of Letter dated 08.03.2013 addressed Op4 to the complainant

Ex.A10             Copy of letter dated 19.08.2013 addressed by Op1 to the complainant

Ex.A11             Copy of police complaint dated 15.03.2014 given by the complainant to the PS Ramachandrapuram

Ex.A12             Copy of receipt no.150 dated 15.03.2014

Ex.A13             Authorization letter of the complainant dated 28.08.2015

Ex.A14             Office copy of legal notice dated 27.08.2015 got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties no.1 to 3

Ex.A15             Original Postal receipts and returned covers

For Opposite party No.4

Ex.B19             Copy of letter addressed by the complainant dated 08.03.2013 to the Op4

Ex.B20             Copy of email correspondence for release of loan amount from complainant`

CC NO. 170 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Anil Kumar,                   Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of Ops)
GPA Holder                                                      Mrs Sitamahalaxmi, as RW2 (on behalf of Op4)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 12.07.2012 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A2               Copy of receipt No.08428 dated 23.10.2011 for Rs.8,50,000/-

Ex.A3               Copy of Tripartite Agreement for housing loan dated 16.08.2012 between Op1, complainant and the Op4

Ex.A4               Copy of Loan Sanction Letter dated 16.08.2012 of the complainant

Ex.A5               Bank Statement of Account of the complainant from 16.08.2012 to 07.09.2015

Ex.A6               Office copy of legal notice dated 25.08.2015 got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties no.1 to 3

Ex.A15             Original Postal receipts and returned covers

For Opposite party No.4

Ex.B19             Copy of letter addressed by the complainant dated 13.08.2012 to the Op4

CC NO. 179 OF 2015

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Lalit Narayan,               Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of Ops)
Mahapatra, Complainant no.1                       Sri P.Ramesh Kumar as RW2 (on behalf of Op4)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 16.04.2010 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A2               Copy of receipt No.05958 dated 17.09.2010 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.A3               Copy of receipt No.05068 dated 14.04.2010 for Rs.2,50,000/-

Ex.A4               Copy of receipt No.05164 dated 30.04.2010 for Rs.3,70,000/-

Ex.A5               Copy of Tripartite Agreement for housing loan dated nil between Op1, complainant and the Op4

Ex.A6               Copy of Loan Sanction Letter dated 21.05.2010

Ex.A7               Bank Statement of Account of the complainant from 01.03.2010 to 31.12.2010

Ex.A8               Office copy of legal notice dated 09.03.2015 got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties no.1 to 3

Ex.A9               Original Postal receipts and acknowledgements

CC NO. 53 OF 2016

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of  Vasa Sanjeeva  ,           Sri Hari Challa,  as RW1 (on behalf of Ops)
Reddy, Complainant                                       Mrs Sitamahalaxmi, as RW2 (on behalf of Op4)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1               Copy of agreement of sale dated 20.07.2012 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant

Ex.A2               Copy of receipt No.10634 dated 06.08.2012 for Rs.7,50,000/-

Ex.A3               Copy of Tripartite Agreement for housing loan dated 11.08.2012 between Op1, complainant and the Op4

Ex.A4               Copy of Loan Sanction Letter dated 16.08.2012 of the complainant

Ex.A5               Bank Statement of Account of the complainant

Ex.A6               Copy of receipt dated 11.08.2012 for RS.10,00,000/-

Ex.A7               Copy of letter of the complainant to Op4 requesting to release part of loan amount. 

Ex.A8               Office copy of legal notice dated 27.02.2016 got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties no.1 to 3

Ex.A15             Original Postal receipts, acknowledgements and returned covers 

For Opposite party No.4

Ex.B19             Copy of letter addressed by the complainant dated 13.08.2012 to the Op4

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 Enviornment 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: 15.02.2017