BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD

F.A.No.1292 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.No.65 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-II TIRUPATI

Between:
Yanamala Purushotham S/o Venkatramaiah
employee in Private Firm, aged 42 years
20-2-494/4E, Maruthi Nagar, Koragunta,
Tirupati

The Managing Partner
Sai Chaitanya Real Estates
(Sai Srilakhsmi)
212, 1^stPrakasam Road
Tirupati

Counsel for the Appellant            

Counsel for the Respondent         

QUORUM:  HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT  

 SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER.

                                               SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO 

WEDNESDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN

Oral Order  

1.      The appellant purchased a plot admeasuring 200 sq.yards for a consideration of`1,39,000/- in Sri Lakhsmi Venture floated by the respondent at Kotramangalam Village of Renigunta Mandal. `250/- towards admission fees as also the cost of plot.  `750/- per sq.yard.  

2.         

3.        higher than that of the land in question.    

4.     

5.    `1,39,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum and`20,000/- towards compensation.

6.       has not filed any application for setting aside of the order of dismissal of the suit.

7.    

1)               Whether the respondent is liable to execute sale deed in favour of the appellant for the land under agreement of sale?

2)               To what relief?

8.           `1,39,500/- towards cost of the plot by the appellant in the venture as also allotment of a plot and execution of agreement of sale thereof, by the respondent have been not disputed.    

9.          

10.        

11.     

The layout which is shown at the time of canvassing is only a model layout and the management reserves its right to alter or modify the same on a future date depending upon the circumstances, accordingly, the plot numbers may change basing on the approval of the final layout by TUDA. 

12.      The respondent having committed himself for providing of amenities as also obtaining of layout from TUDA, neglected to perform his part of obligation and thereby subjected the appellant to hardship. 

13.     

14.      `20,000/- towards compensation and`2,000/- towards costs.  

Kmk*