TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :

AT HYDERABAD

FA NO. 526 OF 2014 against CC NO.216/2012

on the file of District Consumer Forum, Rangareddy

Between :

Y.Nagapadmavathi W/o Y.Phani Rajasekhar,

R/o Flat No.408, Aashrita Meadows, Puppalaguda,

Hyderabad.  Rep. by her father and SPA holder

Y.Madhusudan Rao S/o late Y.Venkataswamy,

Aged about 64 years, Occ: Retd. Govt. Servant,

R/o Flat No.408, Aashritha Meadows,

Puppalaguda, Hyderabad.

Appellant/Complainant

And

1)      M/s Ashritha Constructions, Rep. by its

          Managing Partner, Sri Pomar Gopala Rao Ashok

          and Sri AP Prasada Rao, Regd. Office at

          Puppalaguda, Rajendranagar Mandal,

          Ranga Reddy district.

2)      Sri Pomar Gopal Rao Ashok S/o late

          P.V.Gopala Rao, R/o H.No.16-11-1/E,

          Saleem Nagar Colony, Hyderabad -16.

3)      Sri A.Prasada Rao S/o Sri A.Venkata Rao,

          R/o 4-123, Main Road, Tallapudi,

          West Godavari – 534 341.

4)      Smt.P.Bharathi D/o M.Sriramulu Patel,

          R/o 16-11-1-/1E, Saleem Nagar Colony,

          Hyderabad – 36.

5)      Sri Manga Pavan Kumar S/o Sri M.Moses,

          R/o 79-D, Bansilalpet, Secunderabad.

6)      Sri R.Gopala Rao, R/o Flat No.403,

          President, Aashritha Meadow Welfare Association.

7)      Sri B.Rajasekhar, Flat No.205,

          General Secretary, Aashritha Meadow Welfare

          Association, Plot No.1 to 6, Lalamma Gardens,

          Puppalaguda, Manikonda Main Road, Hyderabad.

Respondents/Opp. parties

Counsel for the Appellant                             :        M/s K.R.R. Associates

Counsel for the Respondents              :        

Coram                  :

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla  …      President

Friday, the Twentieth day of November

Two thousand Fifteen

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

***

          This is an appeal filed against the orders dated 31.07.2014 passed in CC No.216/2012 by the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy seeking to allow the appeal by enhancing the orders of District Forum in CC No.216 of 2012.

2.       Counsel for the Appellant present and reported that the is mistakenly preferred by the Complainant against the orders due to some clerical mistake and miscommunication, hence he is withdrawing the same. 

3.       Heard.  Perused the memo.

4.       In the circumstances stated in the memo, the above appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 

PRESIDENT

​