STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

CC NO.181 OF 2014

Between :

1)       Rajaram Vijayvergiya

          S/o SR Vijay, aged about 39 years,

2)       Swati Vijayvergiya W/o Rajaram

          Vijavergiya, aged about 38 years,

          Both R/o Flat No.301, Block-1,

          SMR Vinay City, Miyapur, Hyderabad.

…Complainants

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director &

          Joint Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdhary & C.Venkat Prasanna

          S/o CVR Chowdary, O/o Flat No.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa

          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.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa 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.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad – 500 081.

          (at present located at Aliens Space Station,

          Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram mandal,

Medak district – 502 032).

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants : Sri V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opp. parties    : M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

CC NO.182 OF 2014

Between :

Arijit Mukherjee S/o Tarun Mukherjee,

Aged about 32 years, R/o Flat No.401,

Mayflower Park, Mallapur, Hyderabad.

Presently residing at H.No.1064/N,

First Floor, 6^th Main Road, 4^th Block,

1^st Stage, HBR Layout, near Hennur Cross,

Bangalore – 560 043.

…Complainant

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director &

          Joint Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdhary & C.Venkat Prasanna

          S/o CVR Chowdary, O/o Flat No.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa

          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.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa 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.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad – 500 081.

          (at present located at Aliens Space Station,

          Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram mandal,

Medak district – 502 032).

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainant   : Sri V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opp. parties    : M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

CC NO.272 OF 2014

Between :

Bathala Kodanda Ramaiah

S/o Bathala Rudra Murthy,

Aged about 33 years,

Rep. By GPA Bathala Ramana Murthy

S/o Bathala Rudra Murthy,

Aged about 43 years, R/o 13/183,

B-25, Vijayanagar Colony,

Satyanarayanapet, Guntakal,

Ananthapur district, A.P.

…Complainant

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director &

          Joint Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdhary & C.Venkat Prasanna

          S/o CVR Chowdary, O/o Flat No.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa

          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.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa 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.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad – 500 081.

          (at present located at Aliens Space Station,

          Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram mandal,

Medak district – 502 032).

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainant   : Sri V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opp. parties    : M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

CC NO.273 OF 2014

Between :

Bathala Kodanda Ramaiah

S/o Bathala Rudra Murthy,

Aged about 33 years,

Rep. By GPA Bathala Ramana Murthy

S/o Bathala Rudra Murthy,

Aged about 43 years, R/o 13/183,

B-25, Vijayanagar Colony,

Satyanarayanapet, Guntakal,

Ananthapur district, A.P.

…Complainant

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director &

          Joint Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdhary & C.Venkat Prasanna

          S/o CVR Chowdary, O/o Flat No.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa

          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.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa 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.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad – 500 081.

          (at present located at Aliens Space Station,

          Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram mandal,

Medak district – 502 032).

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainant   : Sri V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opp. parties    : M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

Coram                  :

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

and

Sri Patil Vithal Rao       …      Member

Friday, the Sixth day of January

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 such, they are disposed of by common order. 

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 multistoried apartments and entered into development agreement with the owners of the land comprised in survey nos. 384, 385 and 426/A situate 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.

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 Ops, complainants suffered with mental agony, escalation of cost and physically by wandering in and around the office of the Ops for the past few years, for which, the Ops are liable to pay compensation as claimed in the table shown above.  Hence, the complaint with a prayer to direct the Ops to comply with the above reliefs, as detailed in the table shown above. 

6.       The opposite parties no.1 and 3 resisted the claim on the premise that the Complainants filed the complaint to gain out of the  breach of contract and the complaints are not maintainable in view of there being  no consumer dispute and the arbitration clause in the agreement of sale providing for arbitration. It is contended that the complaint is filed for recovery of money which is not a consumer dispute and that once the agreement is cancelled and account is settled there is no relationship between the parties.

7.       The opposite parties submitted that on their application for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land and FTL clearance, permission was granted for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land on 14.04.2007 and FTL clearance was granted on 30.12.2006 and thereafter HUDA earmarked the land as agricultural zone and the opposite patties have filed application for change of use of the land as commercial use zone. The Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I) Department notified the land in survey number 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 survey number 384 is made. Realignment of the proposed road was approved on 03.04.2008 and the permission was accorded approving the building plan on 11.04.2008. The opposite parties have obtained NOC from the AP Fire Services Department on 15.12.2007 and permission was granted in respect of the building with height of 90.40 meters. The opposite parties obtained NOC from Airport Authority on 10.07.2009.

8.       The opposite parties have submitted that HUDA accorded technical approval on 14.10.2009 for ground + 20 upper floors and release of building permission up to 29 floors is awaited. The opposite parties have taken all necessary steps to complete the project at the earliest and the project being massive and due to the reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties, the opposite parties could not complete the project within the time frame. The opposite parties informed the complainant about the delay in completion of the project due to delay in clearance from the authorities concerned. In view of arbitration clause, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.

9.       The opposite parties submitted that the opposite parties agreed to pay Rs.3/- per sqft in terms of Clause VIII (g) of the Agreement for the delay caused in completing the project and adjust the amount towards dues payable by the complainant. The opposite parties completed some of the Towers and delivered them to the customers. Unexpected global recession, separate Telangana Agitation and the mass people strike affected the construction which is beyond the control of the opposite parties. 

10.     The complainant failed to pay balance sale consideration as per the terms of the Agreement. The opposite parties had taken every care as to the benefit of their customers and incorporated clause in the Agreement as to their liability to pay damages @Rs.3/- per sq.ft. which would show their fairness and the complainants are not entitled to any money or compensation. The Complainants are not entitled for any compensation and their claim is illegal.  The delivery of the flat is subject to the balance payments and additional charges whatever liable to be paid for the flat and the common amenities and other certificates, etc., will be made available to the Complainants after completion of the project along with other residents.  The complaint is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties.  Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.     The Complainant No.1 in CC No.181/2014 filed his affidavit as evidence and the documents Ex.A1 to A17; Complainant in CC No.182/2014 filed his affidavit as evidence and the documents Ex.A1 to A13; GPA of Complainant by name Bathala Ramana Murthy in CC No.272/2014 filed his affidavit as evidence and the documents Ex.A1 to A15 and the Complainant in CC No.273/2014 filed his affidavit as evidence and the documents Ex.A1 to A15.   On behalf of the opposite parties, the Managing Director of the Opposite party no.1 by name Hari Challa filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex.B1 to B19.

12.     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.  Heard both sides.

13.     The points for consideration are :

i)        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 ?

14.     POINT NO.1 :  The Complainants entered into “Agreement of Sale” with the Opposite parties for purchase of flat as detailed supra, for the consideration thereof and paid the monies thereon for flat proposed to be constructed by the Opposite parties, which is not in dispute.  The agreement of sale was entered into between the Complainant and the Opposite parties in respect of the above stated flat as long back in 2010 in so far as CC No.181/2014 is concerned and in 2012 in so far as other complaints are concerned.  Thereafter, the Complainants paid the substantial amount of consideration as per the pricing pattern of the flat issued by the Ops on various dates. The agreement of sale provides for reference to arbitration.  The learned counsel for the opposite parties had contended that in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement, the Complainants cannot maintain the complaint before this Commission. 

15.     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.”

Thus, in view of the ratio laid in aforementioned decision, the consumer has two options, either to proceed for arbitration process or to invoke the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  As such, it cannot be said that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement.  For the above reasons, the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite parties.

16.     In the arguments, counsel for Complainants reiterated the same facts as averred in the complaint besides stating that the Opposite parties 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.  They relied on Section 72 of Indian Contract Act supported by the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Brij Pal Sharma Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority reported in III (2005) CPJ 43 (SC) and submitted that the Apex Court opined that grant of interest @ 18% p.a. by way of damages and compensation is justified.  He further relied on decision in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs.Balbir Singh reported in II (2004) CPJ 12 wherein it is stated “in our view, irrespective of whether there was genuine reason to cancel or not, the monies must be returned with interest @ 18%.”  This Commission perused the said Judgments.  In Ghaziabad Development Authority versus Balbir Singh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the interest shall be payable from the dates of deposit of the amounts till the date of repayment. 

17.     On the other hand, the counsel for the Opposite parties in the arguments submitted that the Opposite party No.1 could not complete the project within the time frame as it could not get the required clearance from statutory bodies and they had taken shelter under clause No.XIV ‘force majeure’.  The Complainant, therefore, seek possession of the completed apartment, compensation and costs. 

18.     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 Complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon and consented thereto and as per specifications given therein.  The Development Agreement is not merely an agreement and in fact, it is “Development Agreement-cum-Power of Attorney”. 

19.     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 these complaints are concerned.  The opposite parties have attributed the delay to the authorities concerned in granting permission and No Objection Certificate 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’. 

20.     The force majeure clause in the Agreement of sale does not include within its ambit the delay caused in granting permission, NOC etc.,  The Opposite parties failed to explain how they could take shelter under the cover of “force majeure”. We may state that the delay caused in obtaining permission or NOC etc., cannot be considered as ‘force majeure’.  The opposite parties ought to have informed the complainants about the delay likely to be caused in obtaining the permission which they failed to.  For that matter, the Opposite parties cannot receive any sale consideration from any person in respect of any flat unless they have obtained permission from HUDA or HMDA. 

21.     The Opposite parties agreed to complete construction of the flat and deliver its possession to the complainants on or before agreed date i.e., December 2011 to the Complainant in CC No.181/2014; November 2012 to the Complainant in CC No.182/2014 and in December 2013 to the Complainants in CC No.272/2014 and 273/2014, with a grace period of nine months.  The complainants paid the sale consideration amount as detailed in the table shown above and agreed to pay the balance amount at the time of handing over of the possession.  Complainants paid more than 50% of the sale consideration amount of the flat with the hope that the Opposite parties would complete the construction and deliver the flat wherein they could reside with their satisfaction having been fulfilled and they could avoid payment of rent as well.  However, the Opposite parties have not kept their promise and for the delayed period they expressed their readiness to pay the amount in terms of the agreement.  However, 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.  Having received the substantial amount of sale consideration, the Opposite parties kept with them without commencing the construction work of the building.

22.     Not keeping-up 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. 

23.     The Opposite parties can only receive such amount of sale consideration which would be in accordance with the payment schedule and correspond to the stage of construction of the flats.  However, the Opposite parties had received the sale consideration in excess of what was to be received from the complainants particularly when the construction of the building was not yet commenced.  Not keeping-up the 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 difficulty that the complainants faced due to the delay caused in completing the construction of the flat on the part of the Opposite parties has grown many folds as the complainants have to pay EMIs irrespective of the completion of the flat and they have to reside in a house paying rent. It is natural for a person to suffer mental tension by being deprived of residing in the flat and on being obligated to pay EMIs to the bank.

24.     The Complainants also claimed compensation for causing mental agony, suffering and escalation of construction cost.  By virtue of Clause-VIII (f) of the Agreement, the Opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.3/- per sft. from the due date as agreed to handover the flat.  Admittedly, the Opposite parties agreed to deliver the possession of the flat by December 2011, November 2012 and December 2013 respectively with grace period of nine months.  As such, the Opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation from subsequent month of their failure to comply with the agreed period.  Taking into consideration of the hardship the complainant undergone and the amount of Rs.3/- per sft payable by the opposite parties, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards the rent and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.  The Opposite parties are liable to pay the rent of Rs.10,000/- per month from the subsequent month of due date of handing over possession till possession of the flat is delivered and Occupancy Certificate is handed over to the Complainants.  As such, the complaint deserves to be allowed.

25.     POINT No.4 : In the above facts and circumstances, the points 1 to 4 are answered accordingly in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite parties 1 to 3. 

26.     IN THE RESULT, we allow the complaint and direct the Opposite parties 1 to 3

CC No.181/2014

a)       to complete the construction of the flat bearing No.738, station-6 on 7^th floor of the complex by name Space Station-1, comprising of super built-up area of 1874 sft with one covered car parking besides undivided share of land of 40.29 square yards, situate at Tellapur village, Ramachandrapuram mandal, Medak district and deliver its possession to the Complainants and handover copy of Occupancy Certificate

b)       to pay from 01.10.2012 an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards rent to the complainants till possession of flat is delivered;

c)       to register and covey the flat No.738 by way of sale deed on paying the balance sale consideration by the Complainants to the Opposite parties, in which event, the Complainants shall bear the stamp duty and registration charges;

d)       the Opposite parties shall pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards costs.  Time for compliance four weeks.

CC No.182/2014

a)       to complete the construction of the flat bearing No.432, station-6 on 4^th floor of the complex by name Space Station-1, comprising of super built-up area of 1597 sft with one covered car parking besides undivided share of land of 34.34 square yards, situate at Tellapur village, Ramachandrapuram mandal, Medak district and deliver its possession to the Complainant and handover copy of Occupancy Certificate

b)       to pay from 01.09.2013 an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards rent to the complainant till possession of flat is delivered;

c)       to register and covey the flat No.432 by way of sale deed on paying the balance sale consideration by the Complainant to the Opposite parties, in which event, the Complainant shall bear the stamp duty and registration charges;

d)       the Opposite parties shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards costs.  Time for compliance four weeks.

CC No.272/2014

a)       to complete the construction of the flat bearing No.643, station-7 on 6^th floor of the complex by name Space Station-1, comprising of super built-up area of 1874 sft with one covered car parking besides undivided share of land of 40.29 yards, situate at Tellapur village, Ramachandrapuram mandal, Medak district and deliver its possession to the Complainant and handover copy of Occupancy Certificate

b)       to pay from 01.10.2014 an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards rent to the complainant till possession of flat is delivered;

c)       to register and covey the flat No.643 by way of sale deed on paying the balance sale consideration by the Complainant to the Opposite parties, in which event, the Complainant shall bear the stamp duty and registration charges;

d)       the Opposite parties shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards costs.  Time for compliance four weeks.

CC No.273/2014

a)       to complete the construction of the flat bearing No.2625, station-4 on 26^th floor of the complex by name Space Station-1, comprising of super built-up area of 1254 sft with one covered car parking besides undivided share of land of 26.96 yards, situate at Tellapur village, Ramachandrapuram mandal, Medak district and deliver its possession to the Complainant and handover copy of Occupancy Certificate

b)       to pay from 01.10.2014 an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards rent to the complainant till possession of flat is delivered;

c)       to register and covey the flat No.2625 by way of sale deed on paying the balance sale consideration by the Complainant to the Opposite parties, in which event, the Complainant shall bear the stamp duty and registration charges;

d)       the Opposite parties shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards costs.  Time for compliance four weeks.

PRESIDENT                                      MEMBER

Dated : 06.01.2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

C.C. NO.181 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainants :                                                For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of Rajaram                        Affidavit evidence of Hari

Vijayvergiya, complainant No.1                     Challa (on behalf of Ops 1 to 3)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1 is Photostat copy of the Agreement of Sale, dated 15.06.2010 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainants.

Ex.A2 is Photostat copy of the receipt bearing No.05509, dated 22.05.2010 for Rs.2,50,000/-.

Ex.A3 is Photostat copy of the receipt bearing No.05514, dated 25.07.2010 for Rs.1,00,000/-.

Ex.A4 is Photostat copy of the receipt bearing No.05042, dated 22.10.2010 for Rs.1,00,000/-.

Ex.A5 is Photostat copy of the receipt bearing No.06208, dated 30.06.2010.

Ex.A6 is Photostat copy of the receipt bearing No.10363, dated 14.05.2012 for Rs.2,24,934/-.

Ex.A7 is Photostat copy of the receipt bearing No.00104, dated 22.08.2010.

Ex.A8 is Photostat copy of the receipt bearing No.09884, dated 25.01.2012 for Rs.14.05.2012.

Ex.A9 is Photostat copy of letter dated 08.11.2012 addressed by the OP No.1 to complainants.

Ex.A10 is copy of e-mail, dated 10.11.2012 addressed by OP No.1 to the Complainant.

Ex.A11 is copy of Arrangement letter – Home Loan, dated 29.06.2010 addressed by the State Bank of India, RACPC, Hyderabad to the complainants.

Ex.A12 is copy of the statement of account of the complainant’s bank account, for the period from 01.06.2010 to 31.03.2014.

Ex.A13 is copy of the revised price list.

Ex.A14 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 28.06.2014 got issued by the Complainant to the OP No.1.

Ex.A15 are the original postal receipts (2) nos; original postal acknowledgement (1) no.; and one original postal returned cover (1) number.

Ex.A16 is the copy of Certificate of Incorporation, dated 21.03.2006 in respect of OP No.1 company, furnished by Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

Ex.A17 is copy of the Form-32 showing appointment of Sri Hari Challa as Director and Sri C.Venkat Prasanna as Joint Managing Director of Aliens Developers Private Limited from the date of incorporation.

C.C. NO.182 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                        For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of Arijit                                      Affidavit evidence of Hari

Mukherjee, the complainant                                   Challa (on behalf of Ops 1 to 3)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant :

Ex.A1 is Photostat copy of the Agreement of Sale, dated 10.04.2012 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A2 is copy of receipt bearing No.03311, dated 19.04.2009 for Rs.2,00,000/- acknowledged by the OP No.1.

Ex.A3 is copy of receipt bearing No.07072, dated 04.03.2011 for Rs.1,50,000/- acknowledged by the OP No.1.

Ex.A4 is copy of receipt bearing No.10057, dated 15.03.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/- acknowledged by the OP No.1.

Ex.A5 is copy of sanction letter dated 18.06.2011 addressed by the State Bank of India, RACPC, Hyderabad in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A6 is copy of the statement of account of complainant’s savings bank/loan account, for the period from 01.08.2011 to 17.06.2014.

Ex.A7 is copy of the e-mail dated 20.06.2014 addressed by the Ops officials to the complainant.

Ex.A8 is copy of revised list of pricing pattern of the subject flats, issued by OP No.1.

Ex.A9 is office copy of the legal notice, dated 07.06.2014 got issued by the Complainant to the Opposite parties 1 to 3.

Ex.A10 are two original postal receipts; one postal acknowledgement and one original returned postal cover.

Ex.A11 is the copy of Certificate of Incorporation, dated 21.03.2006 in respect of the Aliens Developers Private Limited, furnished by the Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

Ex.A12 is the copy of Form-32 showing appointment of Hari Challa as Director and C.Venkat Prasanna as Joint Managing Director of M/s Aliens Developers Private Limited from the date of certificate of incorporation of the company.

Ex.A13 is the copy of Tripartite Agreement executed by the Complainant, the bank and the OP No.1 company.

C.C. NO.272 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                        For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of Bathala                         Affidavit evidence of Hari

Ramana Murthy, GPA holder of                     Challa (on behalf of Ops 1 to 3)

the Complainant.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1 is Photostat copy of the Agreement of Sale, dated 27.03.2012 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A2 is copy of the receipt bearing No.09721, dated 04.03.2012 for Rs.50,000/- issued by OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A3 is copy of the receipt bearing No.09726, dated 24.03.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued by OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A4 is copy of the receipt bearing No.09975, dated 30.03.2012 for Rs.12,85,490/- issued by OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A5 is copy of the receipt bearing No.10219, dated 17.04.2012 for Rs.7,67,745/- issued by OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A6 is copy of receipt bearing No.10702, dated 09.06.2012 for Rs.2,55,920/- issued by OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A7 is copy of the receipt bearing No.12122, dated 10.09.2013 for Rs.71,170/- issued by OP No.1 in favour of the complainant.

Ex.A8 is copy of arrangement letter-Housing Finance, dated 16.04.2012 issued by the State Bank of Hyderabad, RACPC, Secunderabad addressed to the Complainant.

Ex.A9 is copy of the statement of account of complainant’s account for the period from 30.04.2012 to 23.08.2014.

Ex.A10 is copy of the General Power of Attorney executed by the Complainant in favour of Bathala Ramana Murthy.

Ex.A11 is copy of the revised price list of the subject flats, issued by the OP No.1.

Ex.A12 is office copy of the legal notice, dated 12.08.2014 got issued by the Complainant to the Opposite parties 1 to 3.

Ex.A13 are two original postal receipts and one returned postal cover.

Ex.A14 is the copy of Certificate of Incorporation, dated 21.03.2006 in respect of the Aliens Developers Private Limited, furnished by the Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

Ex.A15 is the copy of Form-32 showing appointment of Hari Challa as Director and C.Venkat Prasanna as Joint Managing Director of M/s Aliens Developers Private Limited from the date of certificate of incorporation of the company.

C.C. NO.273 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                        For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of Bathala                         Affidavit evidence of Hari

Ramana Murthy, GPA holder of                     Challa (on behalf of Ops 1 to 3)

the Complainant.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant :

Ex.A1 is Photostat copy of the Agreement of Sale, dated 29.02.2012 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A2 is copy of the receipt bearing No.09714, dated 12.02.2012 for Rs.50,000/- issued by OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A3 is copy of the receipt bearing No.09716, dated 14.02.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued by OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A4 is copy of the receipt bearing No.10065, dated 24.03.2013 for Rs.2,16,250/- issued by OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A5 is copy of the receipt bearing No.10156, dated 24.03.2012 for Rs.6,15,000/- issued by OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A6 is copy of receipt bearing No.10157, dated 24.03.2012 for Rs.10,81,250/- issued by OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A7 is copy of the receipt bearing No.00703, dated 05.09.2013 for Rs.55,941/- issued by OP No.1 in favour of the complainant.

Ex.A8 is copy of sanction letter for credit limits above Rs.2 lakhs, dated 24.03.2012 issued by the Bank of India, Gachibowli branch, Hyderabad, in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A9 is copy of the statement of account of complainant’s account for the period from 24.03.2012 to 13.08.2014.

Ex.A10 is copy of the General Power of Attorney executed by the Complainant in favour of Bathala Ramana Murthy.

Ex.A11 is copy of the revised price list of the subject flats, issued by the OP No.1.

Ex.A12 is office copy of the legal notice, dated 12.08.2014 got issued by the Complainant to the Opposite parties 1 to 3.

Ex.A13 are two original postal receipts; one original postal acknowledgement and one original returned postal cover.

Ex.A14 is the copy of Certificate of Incorporation, dated 21.03.2006 in respect of the Aliens Developers Private Limited, furnished by the Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

Ex.A15 is the copy of Form-32 showing appointment of Hari Challa as Director and C.Venkat Prasanna as Joint Managing Director of M/s Aliens Developers Private Limited from the date of certificate of incorporation of the company.

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 customer feed back of various customers.

Ex.B19 Copies of photographs of flat occupants occupying the completed flats.

PRESIDENT                                      MEMBER

Dated : 06.01.2017

​