TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :

AT HYDERABAD

EA NO.         71      OF 2013

IN

CC NO.        123    OF 2012

Between :

Sushil Kumar Pandey

J22, AWHO Colony, Ved Vihar,

Subhash Nagar, Tirumulgherry,

Secunderabad – 500 015.

Petitioner/Complainant

And

1)      M/s Aditya Construction Company India Pvt., Ltd.,

          Plot No.A/29, Road No.5, Jubilee Hills,

          Hyderabad – 500 033, rep. by its Director

          Mr.T.Satyanarayana.

2)      Mr.T.Satyanarayana, Director,

          M/s Aditya Construction Company India Pvt., Ltd.,

          Plot No.A/29, Road No.5, Jubilee Hills,

          Hyderabad – 500 033.

Respondents/Opposite parties

Counsel for the Petitioner                             :        Petitioner-in-person

Counsel for the Respondents              :        M/s Legal Matrix

Coram                  :

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

Monday, the Twenty third day of November

Two thousand Fifteen

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

***

          This is an execution application filed by the Petitioner/Complainant herein under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act seeking to initiate proceedings against the Opposite parties and punish them under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, for non-compliance of the orders passed by this Commission in CC No.123 of 2012 dated 24.09.2013.

2.       A memo is filed on 06.11.2014 by the Petitioner/Complainant to the effect that orders were passed by this Commission in CC 123/2012 on 24.09.2013 which were confirmed by the Hon’ble National Commission in FA No.138 of 2014 dated 09.04.2014 as also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide orders dated 04.07.2014 in Special Leave Petition No.14511/2014.  That, in pursuance of the orders of this Commission to the Respondents/Opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.32,97,627.50 in four monthly instalments, the Respondents/Opposite parties have paid the entire amount to the Petitioner/Complainant in four monthly instalments and that he does not have any claim against the Respondents/Opposite parties.  Therefore, prayed to close the above execution application.

3.       Perused the memo.

4.       In the circumstances explained in the Full Satisfaction memo filed by the Petitioner/Complainant, this Execution Application is dismissed as closed. 

PRESIDENT