BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

E.A.NO.46/2013

IN

C.C.No.102/2010

Between:

1.   Sathanapalli Raghu Ram,

S/o. Mr. Krishna Murthy aged about 35 years,

2.   Sathanapalli Subba lakshmi (alias Cherukuri Subba Lakshmi)

W/o. Mr. Sathanapalli Raghu Ram,

Aged about 26 years,

(Both are represented by their GPA

Mr. Sathapalli Ravi Venkatesh S/o. Mr. Krishna Murthy,

Aged about 44 years, R/o. Flat No.201, Sri Sai Ram Homes,

Opp: Engineers Colony Park, Yellareddy Guda,

Hyderabad – 500073.                              …Petitioners / Complainants

And

1.   M/s. Mytas Properties Ltd., (formerly known as M/s. Mytas

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,

Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

Hyderabad – 500072.

2.   Mr. Arun Kumar Saha S/o. Brindavan Chandra Saha,

Aged about 60 years,

Managing Director, M/s. Mytas Properties (P) ltd)

R/o. Maytas Hill Country, Bachupally village & post,

Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

Hyderabad – 500072.

                                                   ….Respondents/ Opposite parties 

Counsel for the Petitioners / Complainants              :      Sri V.Appa Rao

Counsel for the Respondents/ Opposite parties  :     Sri K.Vishweswar Reddy

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

           Sri Patil Vithal Rao  …         Member

         TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL,

                             TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .

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

                                                   ***

       Complainant and opposite parties are the parties in C.C.No.102/2010 on the file of Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  Hyderabad.   It is reported that the matter is under consideration for settlement.

       Heard. Both sides stated that the matter has been compromised between the complainant and opposite parties 1 & 2 outside the court amicably.  Both of them have filed a Compromise Memo in which it is stated as follows:

         “As per the above stated Compromise Memo,  both parties have agreed to settle the matter.  The above case has been filed by the complainant seeking refund of amount.

         As per memo stated that,

         In the light of the above said Settlement, the above CC has become in-fructuous and accordingly no purpose would be served if the above said C.C is kept pending”.

The memo is recorded. 

         In the circumstances, complaint is disposed of accordingly.  

PRESIDENT        MEMBER  

                                                                              Dt.18.04.2017