State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bathala Kodanda Ramaiah vs 1. M/S. Aliens Developers P Ltd., on 2 April, 2026
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD
EA No.20 OF 2017
IN
CC No.273 OF 2014
Between:
Bathala Kodanda Ramaiah,
S/o. Mr. Bathala Rudra Murthy, aged about 33 years,
Rep. by GPA Mr. Bathala Ramana Murthy,
S/o. Mr. Bathala Rudra Murthy, aged about 43 years,
R/o.13/183, B-25, Vijayanagar Colony,
Satyanarayanapet, Guntakal, Ananathapur District,
Andhra Pradesh.
......Petitioner /Complainant
And
1.M/s. Aliens Developers (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director & Joint Managing Director, Mr. Hari Challa, S/o. Mr. CVR Chowdhary & Mr. C. Venkat Prasanna, S/o. Mr. CVR Chowdhary, respectively;
O/o. Flat No.910, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad-500 081.
2. Mr. Hari Challa, S/o. Mr. CVR Chowdary, Managing Director, M/s. Aliens Developers (P) Ltd., O/o. Flat No.910, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad-500 081.
3. Mr. C. Venkat Prasanna, S/o. Mr. CVR Chowdhary, Joint Managing Director, M/s. Aliens Developers (P) Ltd., O/o. Flat No.910, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad-500 081.
2(Services to OPs No.1 to 3, at Aliens Space Station, Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Medak District, Hyderabad,(A.P) PIN-502 032.) ..........Respondents/Opposite Parties Counsel for the Petitioner /Complainant: M/s. V. Appa Rao Counsel for the Respondents/Opposite Parties: M/s. Rajasripathi Rao :QUORUM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (N-J) THURSDAY, THE 02nd DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX ********** Order :
01. This application is filed U/s 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the petitioner/complainant praying this commission to initiate necessary proceedings against the Respondents/Opposite parties for the non-compliance of the common orders dated 06.01.2017 passed in CC No.273 of 2014 on the file of this Commission and punish them as per the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the interest of justice.
02. Counsel for petitioner and R1 to R3 present.
Counsel for R1 to R3 filed a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C to dispense with the attendance of R2 & R3. Petition is allowed.
3Counsel for respondents filed an affidavit enclosing a DD For Rs.1,30,000/- towards the rent up to July,2026 to prove their bona fides. He further submitted that as on date, substantial construction has been completed. Out of total proposed structure, floors from 83 down to 30 have already been constructed. However construction of floors from 1 to 29 is yet to be completed. The remaining scope of work would require a minimum period of 02 years from the present date to complete the remaining floors from 1 to 29 and would take a minimum of 01 year from the date of hand over of flat to issue the occupancy certificate, the delay was beyond the control of the respondents, the project was not stopped or shelved, it was a large infrastructural project due to which it could not be completed in time.
03. The GPA (decree holder) of the complainant present and insisted on enforcement of original relief i.e., completion of the flat and delivery of possession.
04. The judgment debtor had not been disputing the liability but seeks substantial further time of 03 years expressing difficulty in performance.
05. Considering the submissions of both the parties and their counsel as it is not possible to execute the order as prayed by the complainant at present and it takes considerable time, we consider it fit to close the execution petition at present and direct the complainant to file the same as and when the 4 construction was completed as stated by the opposite parties in their affidavit dated 01.04.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER (M-NJ)