BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

E.A.No.37/2013 against  C.C.No.45/2010 

Between:

Mr. Godavarthi Naveen Kumar,

S/o.Mr. Namberumallu aged about 38 years,

R/o. 285 wood land Ave; Apts 210,

San Rafael; California; USA,

Rep. by his GPA.

Mr. G. Namberumallu, S/o. Mr. Subba Rao,

aged about 70 years,

R/o. Flat No.7, Santosh Delux Apartments,

Santosh Nagar Colony, Mehidipatnam,

Hyderabad – 500028.                                        ….. Petitioner /Complainant

AND

1.   M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd; (formerly known 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.                    …Respondents / Opposite parties

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.49/2010 on the file of this Commission.  This commission allowed the complaint in part by the order dated 27.04.2012 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 preferred this application, praying to initiate proceedings against the respondents for non-compliance of the order.

             Heard.  

The Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 / opposite party No.1 have filed a Joint Compromise Memo in which it is stated as follows:

            “The Petitioner / Complainant and Respondent No.1 / Opposite Party No.1 respectfully submit that in the above Execution Application, The Respondent No.1 as per orders of this Hon’ble State Commission has refunded Rs.16,27,626/-, Rs.14,72,004/-, Rs.27,692/- and RS.90,000/- vide Cheque nos.129920, 129654, 129890 and 498962 dated 28.02.2017, 21.12.2016, 22.02.2007 and 21.06.2017 drawn on State Bank of India, Nizampet Road, Hyderabad – 90 respectively, towards E.M.I. amounts with interest.   

        In view of the said settlement, the Petitioner / Complainant is withdrawing the above Execution Application No.37/2013.  Hence it is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to permit the Petitioner / Complainant to withdraw the above Execution Application No.37/2013 in C.C.No.45/2010 by granting leave in the interest of justice.

         The Respondent No.3 has no objection to the said settlement between Petitioner / Complainant and Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1”.

The said memo is recorded.

       In the circumstances, the E.A.37/2013 is disposed of accordingly.  

PRESIDENT   MEMBER        

Dt. 05.07.2017