BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
E.A.No.75/2013 against C.C.No.64/2012
Between:
1. Ravikanth Veda S/o. Mr. Rajendra Kumar,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Private Employee; R/o. Plot No.14/1F,
EBHEL Enclave, Akbar Road,
Secunderabad – 500009.
2. Srivani Veda W/o. Mr. Ravikanth Veda
Aged about 36 years,
Occ: Housewife; R/o. Plot No.14/F,
BHEL Enclave, Akbar Road,
Secunderabad – 500009. ….. Petitioners /Complainants
AND
1. M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd; (formerly know as M/s. Maytas Hill Country (P) Ltd;)
Rep. by its Managing Director
Mr. Arun Kumar Saha S/o. Brindavan Chandra Saha,
R/o. Maytas Hill Country, Bachupally Village & post,
Qutbhullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy dist.,
Hyderabad – 500072.
2. Mr. Arun Kumar Saha S/o. Brindavan Chandra Saha,
Aged about 60 years,
Managing Director M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd;
R/o. Maytas Hill Country, Bachupally Village & post,
Qutbhullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy dist.,
Hyderabad – 500072.
3. Mr. Ramachandra Karunakaran,
S/o. Kalapara Vedasseri Karunakaran aged about not known,
Additional Director M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd;
R/o. Maytas Hill Country, Bachupally Village & post,
Qutbhullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy dist.,
Hyderabad – 500072. …Respondent / Opposite parties
(OP1 & 3 & 6)
Counsel for the Petitioner /Complainant: Sri V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas
Counsel for the Respondents / Opposite parties
: Sri K.Visweswar Reddy
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
&
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN. .
Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Justice Sri. B.N.Rao Nalla, President).
***
The Petitioner is the complainant and the respondents are the opposite parties in C.C.No.64/2012 on the file of this Commission. This commission allowed the complaint in part by the order dated 08.05.2013 directing the
developer to hand over the finished flats under sale by executing registered sale deeds or in the alternative refund the sale consideration with interest, besides penalty amount @ Rs.5/- per sft of the super built up area together with compensation and costs and also against BHW Home Finance Ltd., (hereinafter called the “Finance Company”) for refund of the amount disbursed by the finance company to the developer together with penal interest and credit into their loan account etc., u/s. 17 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
To execute the said order, the petitioner / complainant has preferred this application, praying to initiate proceedings against the respondents for non-compliance of the order.
Heard.
The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 / opposite party filed a Compromise Memo stating as under:
“It is humbly submitted that in compliance of this Hon’ble State Commission order dated 26.08.2016, to refund of Equated Monthly Installment (E.M.I) amounts including 12% interest on it. The Respondent No.1 / opposite party No.1 herein has refunded ‘E.M.I. amount’ as well as ‘interest on E.M.I. amount’ as per below two cheques:
1. Rs.19,05,498/- vide Ch.No.184323 dated 21.09.2016 drawn on State Bank India, Kukatpally Road Branch, Hyderabad.
2. The Respondent No.1 / opposite party handed over the Cheque to Complainants on execution of Cancellation of Sale deed and Cancellation of Agreement for Construction on 21.09.2016 and as per information received from respective Bank the Petitioners/Complainants have received and encashed the amount but did not report before this Hon’ble Commission for such a long period. (Copy of acknowledged cheque was enclosed herewith as an annexure)
In view of the said fact of compliance of the orders by this Respondent No.1 / opposite party No.1 it is humbly prayed that the Honble Commission may be pleased to pass necessary orders dismissing / closing the above Execution Application No.75/2013 in C.C.No.64/2012 filed by the Petitioners / Complainants, in the interest of justice.
The said memo is recorded.
In the circumstances, the E.A.75/2013 is and disposed of accordingly.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt. 05.07.2017
