BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD.
C.C.58/2011
Between:
Mr.Rajanikant Codavalli, S/o.C.S.Madanmohan,
Aged about 36 years, Occ:Software Engineer,
Temporarily residing at H.No.319,
Vista Roma Way,San Jose,California,USA,
Rep. by Father/GPA holder,
Mr.C.S.Madanmohan, S/o.Late Satyanarayana,
Aged about 61 years, Occ:Retd.Govt. Employee,
R/o.H.No.33-94, Plot No.70/A,
RTC Colony, Trimulgerry, Secunderabad-3
1.21st
Nizampet Road,
Hyderabad
‘
NizampetVillage, Quthbullapur Mandal,
2. K.Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Tulsi Reddy,
3. S.Santhosh Kumar, S/o.S.Ashok,
Hyderabad.
4. K.Raja Reddy, S/o.K.S.Reddy,
Hyderabad
5. ICICI Bank Ltd.,ICICIBankTowers,
Hyderabad
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondents
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT,
Oral Order
2)
3)
4).Direction to opp.party no.5 ICICI
5) direct
6. to
The complainant and opposite party no.1 entered into an agreement of sale with regard to the complaint schedule property opposite party no.1 promised to develop
Facility
USA, but there was no response from them. and handover possession with all the specifications and amenities, i.e. the period commenced from 26th that in the event
The further case of the complainant is that
The therein
This opposite party, further, contended, that property, for a tune of Rs.30,99,000/- documents.
This out Rs.30 lakhs has not been disbursed to the builder/opposite party no.1. excess amount to the
This opposite party instalments, under loan agreement, have come out with the present false complaint. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this opposite party with costs.
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove his case, the complainant evidence affidavit of its Manager, Legal, Srinivas Rayala was filed
During the pendency of hearing of the
We heard the counsel for the complainant and we perused the entire material placed on record by both the parties.
Now the point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? If so, to what relief?
It is the case of the plot no.32 admeasuring 200 sq.yards in Sy.Nos.340 and 341 NizamapetVillage, Kuthbullapur Mandal R.R.Dist., which is
As per Ex.A4 copy of the
The complainant has stated in the complaint as well as in the evidence affidavit that the construction contents of Ex.A8.
As per Ex.A4, opposite party no.1 agreed 2.3.2010.
The further entered into Facility Agreements with opposite party no.5 as per Ex.A6 and A7 and to the opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.5 in its written version as well as in
As per Clause 86 D of Ex.A6, ICICI Bank
Opposite party no.5 have filed Ex.B1 pertaining to
Ex.B3 clearly
Ex.A9 is the
Because the contents of Ex.A9 are true, the opposite party no.5 Bank did not choose to deny the same. They have not stated anything Ex.A15 photostat copies of two photos and
It is the case of the complainant th th
In view of the facts and
It is the case of the complainant that he is an employee
In the prayer portion of the complaint, the complainant sought direction to the opposite party no.5 therefore obvious that the complainant is still to repay the loan amount to opposite party no.5 .
As long as the loan is not
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing opposite party no.1 to refund a sum of Rs.16,13,559/-
Pm*
Witnesses examinedFor the complainant: nil
Affidavit of complainant filed .
Evidence Affidavit of opp.party no.5
Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1:
Ex.A2: Agreement ofSale
Ex.A3: Development Agreement dt. 27.9.2007 between OP.1 & Complt
Ex.A4:Agreement of Construction
Ex.A5 :Sale
Ex.A6
Ex.A7
Ex.A8:Copy of notice dt.2.3.2010
Ex.A9: Copy
Ex.A10:Reply legal notice dt.18.6.2010 from opp.party no.5 to Complt.
Ex.A11:Reply legal notice dt.16.8.2010 from opp.party no.5 to Complt.
Ex.A12:ICICI
Ex.A13: ICICI
Ex.A14: letter issued by opp.party no.5 to complainant
Ex.A15 :
Exhibits marked on behalf of the
Ex.B1 : Xerox copies of photographs
Ex.B2 :
Ex.B3 :
Ex.B4 :
PM*
