State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. V.Jagadesh Kumar vs M/S. Aliens Developers P. Ltd., Rep. By ... on 27 February, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana Complaint Case No. CC/132/2015 1. 1. V.Jagadesh Kumar S/o. M.Vivekananda Guptha, aged about 36 years, Occupation Staff Engineer, Resident at Flat No.202, Sri Lakshmi Apartments, Plot No.6,7,8. BSP Colony, Motinagar ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/s. Aliens Developers P. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director and Joint Managing Director, Mr. HariChalla S/o. Mr.CVR Chowdhary and Mr.C.VenkatPrasannaChalla S/o Mr.CVR Chowdhary, respectively O/o.Flat No.910, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Near Hitech City Hyderabad 500 0811 2. 2. Mr. HariChalla S/o. Mr.CVR Chowdhary 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. 3. Mr.C.VenkatPrasannaChalla /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 4. 4. Bank of India Rep.by its Branch Manager Cyber city Towers, Madhapur, Hyderabad 500033, Madhapur Branch Hyderabad ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: Dated : 27 Feb 2017 Final Order / Judgement
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA : AT HYDERABAD CC NO.318 OF 2014 Between :
Lt. Col. Manoj Arora S/o Sh.B.L.Arora Aged about 42 years, R/o N-108, Vivek Vihar (AWHO) Sector-82, Noida-201304, UP ...Complainant A N D
1) M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd., Rep. by its MD, Aliens Space Station Tellapur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Hyderabad-502032
2) Hari Challa S/o not known, Managing Director Aliens Space Station Tellapur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Hyderabad-502032
3) N.Ashok Kumar S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged about 30 years, Executive, Aliens Developers (P) Ltd., Aliens Space Station, Tellapur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Hyderabad-502032
4) The Asst. General Manager State Bank of India, RACPC, Hyderabad Administrative Unit-I, Secunderabad-500 003 ... Opposite Parties CC NO. 68 OF 2015 Between :
Manish Kumar S/o Dinesh Prasad Mandal Aged about 42 years, Occ: Service Mrs Archika Roy W/o Manish Kumar Aged about39 years, Occ: Service Both are permanent R/o CK-270, Salt Lake City Sector-II, Kolkata-700091 ...Complainants A N D
1) M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director & Joint Managing Director O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad - 500 081. ( present addresses of Ops No.1 to 3 are at
Aliens Space Station, Tellapur, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Medak District, Hyderabad (Telangana-502032)
4) State Bank of India Hyderabad University Campus Gachibowli Branch, Hyderabad-500046 Rep. by its Branch Manager ... Opposite Parties CC NO. 81 OF 2015 Between :
Smt Sudhamaee Raja W/o Vamsi Mohan Aged about 30 years, Occ: Software Engineer R/o Plot No.47 to 51, Flat No.G-3, Prakasa Pride, Pragathi Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072 ...Complainant A N D
1) M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director & Joint Managing Director O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad - 500 081. ( present addresses of Ops No.1 to 3 are at
Aliens Space Station, Tellapur, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Medak District, Hyderabad (Telangana-502032)
4) State Bank of Hyderabad Nizampet Branch Hyderabad-500072 Rep. by its Branch Manager ... Opposite Parties CC NO. 92 OF 2015 Between :
Sirigiri Sreedhar S/o Dr.S.Venkateshwarlu Aged about 39 years, Occ: Service Mrs Sirigiri Latha W/o Sirigiri Sreedhar Aged about 35 years, Occ: Home Maker Both are R/o S1, 205, Road No.12, Gunrock Enclave Phase-2, Sikh Village, Hyderabad-500009 ...Complainants A N D
1) M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director & Joint Managing Director O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad - 500 081. ( present addresses of Ops No.1 to 3 are at
Aliens Space Station, Tellapur, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Medak District, Hyderabad (Telangana-502032)
4) State Bank of India Banjara Hills Branch (Code 00822) Road No.12, Hyderabad-500034 Rep. by its Branch Manager ... Opposite Parties CC NO. 114 OF 2015 Between :
Sreenivas Kalyan Narisepalli S/o N.Krishna Murthy, aged about 34 yrs Occ: Software Engineer Mrs Manjula Devi Ponuganti W/o Sreenivas Kalyan Aged about 34 years, Occ: House Wife Both are R/o HIG 409 & 410, Sai Teja Towers Flat No.202, KPHB, 6th Phase, Hyderabad-500072 ...Complainants A N D
1) M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director & Joint Managing Director O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad - 500 081. ( present addresses of Ops No.1 to 3 are at
Aliens Space Station, Tellapur, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Medak District, Hyderabad (Telangana-502032)
4) Bank of India Rep. by its Asst. General Manager, AP Police Academy Branch Hyderabad-500091 ... Opposite Parties CC NO. 121 OF 2015 Between :
Venkata Satyasiva Prasad Patna S/o Gadaadhar Patnaik, aged about 35 years Occ: Software Engineer Mrs A Ch Kalyani Dwivedulu W/o Venkata Satyasiva Prasad Patna, aged about 35 years, Both R/o K-203, Aparna Kanopy Tulips, Gundlapochampally Near Apparel Export Park, Ranga Reddy District ...Complainants A N D
1) M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director & Joint Managing Director O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad - 500 081. ( present addresses of Ops No.1 to 3 are at
Aliens Space Station, Tellapur, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Medak District, Hyderabad (Telangana-502032)
4) State Bank of India Rep. by its Branch Manager Chirag Ali Lane Branch Hyderabad-500001 ... Opposite Parties CC NO. 131 OF 2015 Between :
Ms Shirisha Kumari Nangunoori D/o Hanumantha Rao Nangunoori Aged about 38 years, Occ: Software Engineer Presently R/o 8000 John Davis Dr., Apt 2304 Frankfort, KY, 40601, rep. by her Authorization Holder Hanumantha Rao Nangunoori S/o Rajah Nangunoori Aged about 65 years Occ: Retd. Sr.Engineer R/o H.No.6-3-186/H, Jainagar Colony, New Bhoiguda Secunderabad-500080 ...Complainant A N D
1) M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director & Joint Managing Director O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad - 500 081. ( present addresses of Ops No.1 to 3 are at
Aliens Space Station, Tellapur, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Medak District, Hyderabad (Telangana-502032)
4) Bank of India Rep. by its Branch Manager AP Police Academy Branch Hyderabad-500 091 ... Opposite Parties CC NO. 132 OF 2015 Between :
V.Jagadesh Kumar S/o M.Vivekananda Gupta Aged about 36 years, Occ: Staff Engineer Mrs Kalpana Jagadesh Kumar W/o V Jagadesh Kumar,Aged about 34 years, Both are R/o Flat No.202, Sri Lakshmi Apartments Plot No.6, 7, 8 BSP Colony, Motinagar, Hyderabad.
...Complainants A N D 1) M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director & Joint Managing Director O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad - 500 081. ( present addresses of Ops No.1 to 3 are at
Aliens Space Station, Tellapur, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Medak District, Hyderabad (Telangana-502032)
4) Bank of India Hyderabad Overseeas, Cyber City Towers Madhapur, Hyderabad-500 033 Rep. by its Branch Manager, Madhapur Branch, Hyderabad ... Opposite Parties CC NO. 142 OF 2015 Between :
Rajesh Moparthi S/o Venkata Rao Moparthi Aged about 41 years, Occ: Software Engineer Venkata Rao Moparthi S/o Venkata Subbaiah Moparthi Aged about 64 years, Occ: Retd. Employee Both are R/o 403, Quality Residency, Rajiv Nagar Extension Ongole Prakasam Dist., Andhra Pradesh-523002 ...Complainants A N D
1) M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director & Joint Managing Director O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad - 500 081. ( present addresses of Ops No.1 to 3 are at
Aliens Space Station, Tellapur, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Medak District, Hyderabad (Telangana-502032)
4) State Bank of India Rep. by its Branch Manager Banjara Hills Branch, Road No.2 Hyderabad-500001 ... Opposite Parties CC NO. 143 OF 2015 Between :
Vijay Vardhan Bangari S/o Bhasker Bangari Aged about 37 years, Occ: Hotelier R/o Al Jebri Building, B-Block, 1201, A1 Qusais Dubai, UAE Rep. by his father authorized holder Mr.Bhasker Bangari S/o Mr.Hosiah Bangari, occ: Retd. Employee, aged about 69 yrs R/o H.No.32/B, Bible House, Bansilalpet, Secunderabad-500003 ...Complainants A N D
1) M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director & Joint Managing Director O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad - 500 081. ( present addresses of Ops No.1 to 3 are at
Aliens Space Station, Tellapur, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Medak District, Hyderabad (Telangana-502032)
4) State Bank of India Banjara Hills Branch, Road No.12 Hyderabad-500034 Rep. by its Branch Manager ... Opposite Parties CC NO. 148 OF 2015 Between :
Pulluri Hari Kishan S/o P.Suraiah Aged about 38 yrs, Occ: Software Engineer R/o 114/115, Ashutosh Residency, Moosapet Hyderabad ...Complainant A N D
1) M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director & Joint Managing Director O/o Flat No.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa 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.911, Teja Block, My Home Navadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad - 500 081. ( present addresses of Ops No.1 to 3 are at
Aliens Space Station, Tellapur, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Medak District, Hyderabad (Telangana-502032)
4) State Bank of India Rep. by its Branch Manager Madhapur Branch Hyderabad-500081 ... Opposite Parties Counsel for the Complainant(s): Sri D.Raji Reddy, Advocate and Sri K.Venkateswarlu Counsel for the Opp. Parties: M/s P.Rajasripathi Rao No.1 to 3 Counsel for the Opp.Party No.4: Sri V.Narsing Rao, Ms Vinoda Devi, Sri G.Prabhakar Sharma, Sri Ch.Govardhan Rao and Sri Hari Prasad.
QUORUM : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA, PRESIDENT AND SRI VITHAL RAO PATIL, MEMBER MONDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY 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 they are disposed of by common order. The complaint, C.C.No.68/2015 is taken as the lead case.
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 multi-storied apartments and entered into development agreement with the owners of the land comprised in survey nos. 384, 385 and 426/A situated 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:
Case number Flat number Station Area in Sft.
Un-divided share (in Rs.) Total consideration Amount paid (in Rs) Date of Agreement Date of completion/ grace period 318/2014 11269(A) on 12th floor No.10 1344 28.90 sq.yds 36,86,839/-
21,34,977/-
29.04.2010 Dec'2011/6 months 68/2015 320 on 3rd floor No.4 1432 30.79 sq.yads 44,90,244/-
22,45,122/-
24.05.2009 Dec'2011/ 6 months 81/2015 2075 on 20th floor No.12 1874 40.29 sq.yds 56,18,199/-
26,91,185/-
20.07.2012 June 2013 92/2015 716 on 7th Floor No.3 1874 40.08 sq.yads 64,93,464/-
59,38,749/-
20.08.2008 Dec'2013/ 9 months 114/2015 1975 on 19th floor No.12 1874 40.29 sq.yds 55,23,327/-
35,49,560/-
20.06.2012 June 2013/6 months 121/2015 625 on 6th floor No.4 1254 26.96 sq.yds 34,34,641/-
15,85,587/-
27.04.2009 Within 3 year/ 6 months 131/2015 2305 on 23rd floor No.1 1432 30.79 sq.yds 53,46,071/-
26,64,364/-
17.07.2012 Dec'2014 / 6 months 132/2015 1240B on 12(B) floor No.7 1432 30.79 sq.yds 42,79,000/-
21,38,800/-
24.08.2012 June 2014/6 months 142/2015 1259A on 12th (A) floor No.10 1673 35.97 sq.yads 45,66,456/-
31,47,702/-
26.10.2008 Within 3 years/ 6 months 143/2015 543 on 5th floor No.7 1874 40.29 sq.yds 46,69,249/-
23,58,627/-
23.04.2009 Within 3 years/6 months 148/2015 1160 on 11th floor No.10 1344 28.90 sq.yds 36,50,790/-
15,38,940/-
28.10.2009 Dec'2011/3 months
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.
Case number Relief sought (principal) (Rs.) Rate of interest Holding charges Rental Value Compensation claimed Costs claimed 318/2014 21,34,977/-
24% p.a.
-
-
5,00,000/-
50,000/-
68/2015 22,45,122/- together with refund of Rs.1,76,662/- towards insurance premium 24% p.a. 1,67,544/-
5,58,480/-
10,00,000/-
50,000/-
81/2015 26,91,185/-
24% p.a. 1,18,062/-
3,93,540/-
10,00,000/-
50,000/-
92/2015 59,38,749/-
24% p.a. 2,13,636/-
7,12,120/-
04,00,000/-
50,000/-
114/2015 35,49,560/-
24% p.a. 1,01,196/-
4,49,760/-
15,00,000/-
50,000/-
121/2015 15,85,587/-
24% p.a. 1,20,384/-
4,01,280/-
10,00,000/-
50,000/-
131/2015 26,64,364/-
24% p.a. 30,072/-
1,00,240/-
10,00,000/-
50,000/-
132/2015 21,38,800/-
24% p.a. 30,072/-
1,00,240/-
10,00,000/-
50,000/-
142/2015 31,47,702/-
24% p.a. 3,01,140/-
-
05,00,000/-
50,000/-
143/2015 23,58,627/-
24% p.a. 1,85,526/-
7,42,104/-
10,00,000/-
50,000/-
148/2015 To hand over the flat on completion in all aspects etc., or refund 15,38,940/-
24% p.a. 1,77,408/-
5,91,360/-
10,00,000/-
50,000/-
The Complainants also sought to repay the home loan owed by them to the Opposite party bank with necessary interest and other charges as levied.
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 opposite parties, complainants suffered with mental agony, escalation of cost and physically by wandering in and around the office of the opposite parties for the past few years, for which, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation as claimed in the table shown above. Hence, the complaint with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to comply with the above reliefs, as detailed in the table shown above.
6. The Opposite parties promised to deliver the possession of the flat to the Complainants as prescribed in the agreement of sale with some grace period. Having agreed to purchase the above flats, Complainants entered into Agreement of sale with the Opposite party No.1 paying the earnest money and also by obtaining home loan from the OP No.4 bank and got disbursed the amount.
7. The Complainants opted for pre-EMI scheme, as such, OP No.1 shall pay the pre-EMI on behalf of the complainants till the date of possession of the flat in pursuance of the Tripartite Agreements entered into between the parties. The Complainants are compelled to pay the monthly loan instalments amount to opposite party No.4 bank. The opposite parties 1 to 3 have failed to commence even the base/pillar footing works at the site in respect of the subject flats, as such, Complainants requested for cancellation of the booking and sought for refund of the amount. Hence, prayed to allow the complaint as prayed for, supra in the table shown above.
8. The Opposite parties 1 to 3 resisted the claim on the premise that the complainants filed the complaint to gain out of their breach of contract and the complaint is not maintainable in view of there being no consumer dispute and the arbitration clause mentioned in the agreement of sale providing for settlement of disputes by means of arbitration process.
9. The Opposite parties submitted that originally the land in Sy.No.384 was an agricultural land and they filed application for conversion of the same into non-agricultural land on 23.10.2006 and FTL clearance was granted on 30.12.2006. Permission was granted on 14.04.2007 for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land and thereafter HUDA earmarked the land as agricultural zone and the Opposite parties have filed application for change of use of the land as commercial use zone.
10. It is averred by Opposite parties that Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I) Department notified the land in Sy.No.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 Sy.No.384 is made. Realignment of the proposed road was approved on 03.04.2008 and permission was accorded approving the building plan on 11.04.2008. Opposite parties have obtained NoC from the A.P. Fire Services Department on 15.12.2007 and subsequently it was reduced from 91.40 meters to 90.40 meters. After following due procedure and process, the Opposite parties obtained NoC from Airports Authority on 10.07.2009.
11. It is further averred that HUDA accorded technical approval on 14.10.2009 for ground + 20 floors and release of building permission upto 29 floors is awaited. In view of arbitration clause in the agreement the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the same has to be referred for arbitration as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. That they have taken necessary steps to complete the project. The project is a massive project and due to reasons beyond their control, the Opposite parties could not complete the project within the time frame and they informed the complainant that the project required sanction from statutory authorities and mentioned the same as 'force majeure' in the agreement of sale. It also agreed to pay compensation at agreed rate to maintain goodwill and relationship with the customers.
12. It is stated that for the delay, the Opposite parties have agreed to pay Rs.3/- per sq.ft. in terms of clause VIII(g) of the Agreement for the delay caused in completing the project and they agreed to adjust the amount towards dues payable by the complainant. The delay was only due to Telangana agitation, Sakala Janula Samme, etc., The complainant filed the complaint with ulterior motive to defame the opposite parties. The Complainant shall file relevant receipts and documents to prove the payments.
13. They denied to have not given any response. The Opposite parties are taking all necessary steps to deliver the flats at the earliest. The Complainant is not entitled for any compensation and their claim is illegal. The complainant is not entitled for refund of amount and interest thereon and any compensation and costs. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
14. The opposite party no.4 filed evidence affidavit by stating that the complainant was sanctioned home loan after completing all the formalities to purchase flat. The complainants are estopped to contend that the opposite party no.4 should have co-related the loan disbursement with the progress of the construction in accordance with the progress of Sec.4 and 5 of the AP Apartment (Promotion of Construction and Ownership Act, 1987) and the opposite party no.4 violated the same and committed unfair practice. It is further stated that as per the Tripartite Agreement the complainants are responsible for every payment and denied that it colluded with the opposite parties no.1 to 3 and released the loan amounts. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
15. During the course of enquiry, the Complainant got filed evidence affidavit on their behalf and also got marked the documents as exhibits A1 to A13. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 3, the Managing Director of the Opposite party no.1 by name Hari Challa filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex.B1 to B18, in each case. The opposite party no.4 filed affidavit of its Chief Manager and no documents have been marked on its behalf.
16. 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 on behalf of Complainants. Heard both sides.
17. The points for consideration are :
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 ?
18. POINT NO.1 : The Complainants entered into "Agreement of Sale" with the Opposite party No.1 for purchase of flats and paid the consideration amount as detailed in the above shown above. A tripartite agreement was also executed by the Complainants and Ops. The agreement of sale provides reference to arbitration. The learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 have contended that in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement, the Complainants cannot maintain the complaint before this Commission. Clause XVIII of the Agreement of sale provides for deciding the disputes arising under the agreement by arbitration proceeds.
19. In terms of the agreement of sale, the dispute has to be decided by means of arbitration. 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."
For the above reasons, the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite parties.
20. In the arguments, counsel for Complainants reiterated the same facts as averred in the complaint besides stating that the Opposite parties 1 to 3 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.
21. On the other hand, the counsel for the Opposite parties 1 to 3 in the arguments submitted that as per agreement, if the Complainants wants to cancel the booking of the flat, they shall forego 10% of the total flat cost as charges which is agreed by them. In the case on hand, there is no provision for refund of earnest money. Admittedly, on failure to comply with terms and conditions of agreed terms by the Opposite parties 1 to 3, the Complainants sought for refund of the amount. Hence, this Commission does not find any merit in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for Opposite parties 1 to 3. Though averments are made against the Opposite party No.4 in the complaint, no relief is sought against it by the Complainants.
22. 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 Complainants in accordance with the terms & conditions agreed upon and consented thereof and as per specifications given thereto.
23. 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 this complaint is concerned. The opposite parties have attributed the delay to the authorities concerned in granting permission and NoC 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. The Opposite parties 1 to 3 stated the reasons for the delay in completion of the construction of the residential complex as under:
"The reasons, for delay is, project required clearance from statutory bodies which are necessary for execution of the project. The said fact was informed to the complainant and even mentioned in the agreement of sale under clause No.XIV and described as "force majure". The above referred facts mentioned squarely fall under the said clause. Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable before the Hon'ble Commission as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opp. party in executing the project and if the complainant wants to cancel her booking she can do so in conformity with terms of agreement only."
24. The complainants have submitted that owing to failure of the opposite parties 1 to 3 in completing the construction of the flats, they opted for cancellation of the agreement of sale of flat and the opposite parties 1 to 3 have contended that in order to maintain cordial relations with the complainants, they agreed to pay compensation in terms of the agreement which they entered into in normal course with other customers. The complainants also got issued notice setting forth series of events of delay and negligence and false promises made by the Opposite parties 1 to 3 seeking for refund of the amount on the premise of inaction on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3.
25. The opposite parties 1 to 3 have promised to complete construction of the flat and hand over its possession to the complainants as prescribed in the agreement of sale with certain grace period as agreed and on their failure to perform their part of contract, the opposite parties 1 to 3 have proposed to pay rents but failed to pay the same. However, there is no communication from the side of the opposite parties in this regard and 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.
26. Not keeping 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.
27. The complainant contends that contrary to the terms of agreement and also various guidelines for releasing loan amounts, the bank has released the entire amount in one go without considering the stages of construction to the detriment of his interest. The bank can directly pay the amount to the developer as agreed upon but not whole of the amount without even verifying the stages of construction and existence of property. It could not have released the amount without verifying the progress of construction jeopardising their claims. By referring to project programme guide lines where there was specific reference that the developer should be in business for not less than 5 years and the builder/developer has history of due completion of 3 projects and it should have completed at least 1,00,000 sft. of built up area, and that without satisfying the eligibility criterion, the bank could not have sanctioned Advance Disbursement Facility (ADF for short).
28. The OP No.4 bank contends that by virtue of tripartite agreement, the developer has to indemnify the bank in cases of this nature, where under, it was specifically mentioned that :
"The Builder agrees to demand payment from the Bank towards the cost of the Flat strictly as per the stage of construction of the Flat agreed to be sold to the Borrower and it will be responsibility of the Borrower to verify the stage of construction.
Immediately upon receipt of the loan amount sanctioned to the Borrower, the Builder agrees to execute and register a valid conveyance in favour of the Borrower and deliver the original Sale Deed after its registration directly to the Bank. In this context, the Borrower irrevocably authorises the Builder to deliver the original Sale Deed directly to the bank."
The developer and complainant are jointly liable for any of the claims for the loan amount disbursed. In the light of above clause, they are estopped from making any claim. In order to get over the payment of the amount towards EMI they were impleaded as parties. It is only a financial institution facilitating funding of the project and purchase thereof. It has nothing to do with the completion of construction.
29. In contravention of the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India from time to time and tripartite agreement, the bank disbursed the loan amount. It is not known why the bank had taken such a stance when the guidelines stipulate to release the amount stage wise. The fact remains that the bank released the amounts to the developer contrary to guidelines.
30. There would be no meaning in releasing the entire amount in one go, without watching the progress of construction work. This would cause unjust enrichment to the developer, and loss to the complainant. The terms of the agreement in between three parties were made in order to see that no party suffers from non-implementation of terms of the agreement. The bank cannot act at its own whims and fancies, and release the amount.
31. If the bank acts contrary to the guidelines, the complainant is not liable to refund the amount paid to the developer. The bank can as well recover from the developer by recoursing the above clauses. The courts will not come to the rescue of the party which violates the terms and conveys benefits to one party in preference to another. It intends to cause loss to a genuine borrower by unduly favouring a defaulting and unfair customer. All this amounts to unfair trade practice.
32. However, the very property which the complainants sought to purchase was a non-existent property kept as primary security. It also extended the loan on deposit of equitable mortgage though there was a mention that if equitable mortgage is not possible it would be by registered mortgage deed. The bank alleges that loan was sanctioned taking the property as security which the complainant intends to purchase from the developer besides on the instruction of the complainant. When the bank knew full well that the property was non-existent and no doubt document was executed in favour of the complainant by the developer in order to create equitable mortgage, disbursing the loan amount to the developer cannot be said to be valid. Considering the nature of transaction between the parties, we are of the opinion that the bank could not have disbursed the amount without taking proper care and caution to find out the non-existence of the flat for which loan was sanctioned.
33. The banks and financial institutions promising to lend monies or sanctioning loans and the borrower investing in the project will be clothed by the principles of Promissory Estoppel. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an evolving doctrine, contours of which are not yet fully and finally demarcated. Being an equitable doctrine, it should be kept elastic enough in the hands of the court to do complete justice between the parties. If the equity demands that the promissor is allowed to resile and the promisee is compensated appropriately that ought to be done. If, however, equity demands that the promissor should be precluded in the light of things done by the promisee on the faith of representation from resiling and that he should be held fast to his representation, that should be done. It is a matter holding scales even between the parties to do justice between them. This is the equity implicit in the doctrine vide State of H.P. Vs. Ganesh Wood Products reported in 1995 (6) SCC 363.
34. It is legally open to the bank to take a decision in good faith in the exercise of its bonafide discretion as to whether it was safe to make advances of public monies to any particular party and arrive at a decision after examining the relevant facts and circumstances. The bank did not act in good faith nor had it exercised bonafide discretion while releasing the funds.
35. Recourse can be had to a decision in Nannapaneni Venkata Rao Co-operative Sugars Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India reported in AIR 2003 AP 515 (DB) it was held :
"Refusal on the part of the respondent bank to pay interest on the ground that opening of such account and crediting of the interest is not in accordance with the guidelines of RBI is not tenable as the respondent is solely responsible for suppressing the fact while entering into the contract."
36. This Commission can take judicial cognizance of the fact that the OP No.4 bank had financed the builder obviously in view of reputation the developer was having by then, and the bank contrary to the terms of the agreement as well as guidelines, disbursed the amounts keeping the interests of the complainant in jeopardy. The banks are picking and choosing certain clauses and contending that the very complainant have given authorization to them to release the amount and therefore they have released, forgetting the fact that the very financing of the project was contrary to the scheme issued in this regard. Evidently, the bank as well as the developer benefitted from these transactions. The developer has taken the amount without constructing the flat, and equally the bank has been collecting the amounts from the complainant towards EMI. It is a case of double jeopardy. Necessarily all this amounts to unfair trade practise as well as deficiency in service on the part of developer as well as the bank. Necessarily the complainant is to be compensated. Since terms of the agreement enable the bank to collect from the developer, it can as well recover the same. The bank by violating its own rules cannot take advantage and recover the same from the complainant.
37. The bank has undoubtedly violated the guidelines and released the amount even without bothering to verify as to the stage and nature of construction. In other words, the bank financed a non-existent project or incomplete project, duping its own customer. If the bank releases the amounts contrary to the guidelines, it has to suffer for the consequential losses. Whatever loss caused thereby it could as well approach appropriate forum for recovery of the amount from the developer, to which it has released the amount in one go. The bank under the terms entitled to recover from the developer to which it had paid the amounts. It cannot turn round and claim against the complainant. It is not under original stipulation that the bank had to pay the entire amount to the developer. The developer also agreed to refund the amount if there are cancellations of the agreements or failure to fulfil its commitments. The agreement that was arrived at earlier was fair and no party would benefit from the lapses or mistakes of the other. Therefore, the complainant is not liable to pay the equated monthly instalments.
38. The bank has to collect the loan amount plus whatever interest and other legally permissible charges from the developer and credit it to the complainant's loan account. It shall not collect further EMI's nor entitled to any more amount except the amount, if any, remained unpaid by the complainant towards loan granted to him. The bank has no authority to complain to CIBIL. In fact, if there is a provision, the CIBIL has to enter the name of the bank, as one of the violators of guidelines of the banks. For the reasons stated supra, the Points No.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite parties.
39. In the above facts and circumstances, the points 1 to 4 are answered accordingly holding that the Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amounts to the Complainants.
40. It is pertinent to mention here though the amounts claimed towards refund of the amount in CC No.318/2014, CC No.92/2015 and CC 143/2015 in the pleadings, however, no receipts therefor are filed.
41. In the result, the complaints are allowed holding the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to refund the amount paid by the Complainants. In case, sale deed was executed, the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above direction. The registration charges and stamp duty, etc., shall be borne by the developer. Time for compliance: four weeks.
C.C. NO.318/2014(i) In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.19,90,096/- (as per Ex.A1, A6 and A8) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
ii) Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.
iii) In case sale deed was executed, the complainant shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.C.C. NO.68/2015
(i) In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.22,45,122/- (as per Ex.A1, A6 and admission of Op4 in its affidavit) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
ii) Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.
iii) In case sale deed was executed, the complainant shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.C.C. NO.81/2015
(i) In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.26,91,185/-( as per Exs.A2 to A5) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
ii) Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.
iii) In case sale deed was executed, the complainant shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.C.C. NO.92/2015
(i) In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.53,38,749/-( as per Exs.A2 to A11 and A15) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
ii) Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.
iii) In case sale deed was executed, the complainant shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.C.C. NO.114/2015
(i) In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.35,49,560/-( as per Exs.A8 and A9 and admission of Op4 in its evidence affidavit) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
ii) Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.
iii) In case sale deed was executed, the complainant shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.C.C. NO.121/2015
(i) In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.15,85,587/-( as per Exs.A2 to A5 and admission of the Op4 in its evidence affidavit) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
ii) Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.
iii) In case sale deed was executed, the complainant shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.C.C. NO.131/2015
(i) In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.26,64,364/-( as per Exs.A2 to A5, A8 and admission of the Op4 in its evidence affidavit) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
ii) Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.
iii) In case sale deed was executed, the complainant shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.C.C. NO.132/2015
(i) In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.21,38,800/-( as per Exs.A2 to A5, A10 and A11) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
ii) Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.
iii) In case sale deed was executed, the complainant shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.C.C. NO.142/2015
(i) In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.31,47,702/-( as per Exs.A1 to A6) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
ii) Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.
iii) In case sale deed was executed, the complainant shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.C.C. NO.143/2015
(i) In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.23,34,624/-( as per Exs.A2 to A5) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
ii) Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.
iii) In case sale deed was executed, the complainant shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.C.C. NO.148/2015
(i) In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.14,86,119/-( as per Exs.A2 to A5) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment till payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
ii) Further, the developer OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with interest, penal charges etc., levied by the OP No.4 bank, if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainant.
iii) In case sale deed was executed, the complainant shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated: 27.02.2017 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE CC NO. 318 OF 2014 WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant : For Opposite parties : Affidavit evidence of Col Manoj Arora Sri Hari Challa, as RW1 (on behalf Complainant Op No.1). Sri P.Ramesh Kumar, RW2 ( on behalf of Op. no.4 EXHIBITS MARKED For Complainants : Ex.A1 Copy of receipt bearing No.579 dated 26.03.2010 for Rs.2,50,000/- Ex.A2 Copy of agreement of sale dated 29.04.2010 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant Ex.A3 Copy of letter dated 18.05.2010 from the complainant to the opposite party no.1 enclosing the post dated cheques of rs.5,00,000/- Ex.A4 Copy of letter dated 24.06.2010 from the opposite party no.1 to the complainant demanding to arrange payment of Rs.12,40,096/- Ex.A5 Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 25.06.2010 between the complainants, Ops Ex.A6 Copy of receipt bearing No.06701 dated 28.06.2010 for Rs.12,40,096/- Ex.A7 Copy of letter from the Op1 to the complainant informing him that his flat was ready Ex.A8 Copy of letter dated 13.02.2013 from the Opposite party no.1 to the complainant confirming the cancellation of the flat Ex.A9 Copy of certificate of insurance Ex.A10 Copy of email dated 07.08.2013 Ex.A11 Copy of email dated 08.08.2013 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE CC NO. 68 OF 2015 WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant : For Opposite parties : Affidavit evidence of Manish Kumar Sri Hari Challa, as RW1 (on behalf Complainant Op No.1). Sri G.Shiv Shankar, RW2 ( on behalf of Op. no.4 EXHIBITS MARKED For Complainants : Ex.A1 Copy of agreement of sale dated 20.07.2012 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant Ex.A2 Copy receipt bearing No.10142 dated 25.06.2012 for Rs.2,50,000/- Ex.A4 Copy of online banking of payment transfer of Rs.1,50,000/- to Op1 Ex.A5 Copy of Home Loan arrangement letter dated 27.10.2009 of Op4 Ex.A6 Copy of account extract of complainant from 04.08.2009 to 08.10.2012 Ex.A7 Copy of legal notice dated 27.01.2015 got issued by the complainants to the Ops Ex.A8 Copies of Indian Posts net tracking and returned postal covers APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE CC NO. 81 OF 2015 WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant : For Opposite parties : Affidavit evidence of M.Vijay Kumar Sri Hari Challa, as RW1 (on behalf Complainant Op No.1). EXHIBITS MARKED For Complainants : Ex.A1 Copy of agreement of sale dated 20.07.2012 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant Ex.A2 Copy receipt bearing No.10142 dated 25.06.2012 for Rs.2,50,000/- Ex.A3 Copy of receipt bearing No.10616 dated 18.07.2012 for Rs.4,50,000/- Ex.A4 Copy of receipt bearing No.11276 dated 02.11.2012 for Rs.3,76,000/- Ex.A5 Copy of receipt bearing no.11403 dated 05.12.2012 for Rs.16,15,185/- Ex.A6 Copy of Home Loan arrangement letter dated 26.11.2012 of Op4 Ex.A7 Copy of Bank account statement of the complainant between 25.06.2012 to 03.12.2012 Ex.A8 Copy of legal notice dated 27.01.2015 got issued by the complainant to the Ops Ex.A9 Original Postal receipts and returned postal covers Ex.A10 Copy of General Power of Attorney issued by the complainant in favour M.Vijaya Kumar dated 2.10.2016 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE CC NO. 92 OF 2015 WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant : For Opposite parties : Affidavit evidence of Sirigiri Sreedhar Sri Hari Challa, as RW1 (on behalf Complainant Op No.1). Smt Bindu Janardhan, as RW2 ( on behalf of Op4) EXHIBITS MARKED For Complainants : Ex.A1 Copy of agreement of sale dated 20.08.2008 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant Ex.A2 Copy of receipt bearing No.00235 dated 05.06.2008 for Rs.5,00,000/- Ex.A3 Copy of receipt bearing No.00190 dated 07.06.2008 for Rs.4,77,749/- Ex.A4 Copy of receipt bearing no.02400 dated 09.07.2008 for Rs.3,71,000/- Ex.A5 Copy of receipt bearing No.02981 dated 04.02.2009 for Rs.10,00,000/- Ex.A6 Copy of receipt bearing No.02982 dated 06.02.2009 for Rs.5,00,000/- Ex.A7 Copy of receipt bearing No.03120 dated 02.04.2009 for Rs.1,20,000/- Ex.A8 Copy of payment calculation sheet issued by Op.1 to complainant Ex.A9 Copy of receipt bearing No.12407 dated 13.12.2013 for Rs.3,70,000/- Ex.A10 Copy of receipt bearing No.13107 dated 24.9.2014 for Rs.1,30,000/- Ex.A11 Copy of receipt bearing No.13113 dated 14.10.2014 for Rs.70,000/- Ex.A12 Copy of Home Loan Sanction Letter dated 01.09.2008 Ex.A13 Copy A/c payee cheque dated 10.09.2008 for Rs.18 lakhs Ex.A14 Copy of Mandate Form for Electronic Clearing Service (Debit Clearing) Ex.A15 Copy of letter dated 10.09.2008 addressed by Op1 to the complainant informing him that they received Rs.18,00,000/- disbursed by Op4 Ex.A16 Copy of Agreement for Reservation dated 12.12.2013 executed by Op1 in favour of the complainant Ex.A17 Office copy of legal notice dated 26.03.2015 got issued by the complainants to the Opposite parties Ex.A18 Original postal receipts and postal acknowledgements For opposite party no.4 Ex.B19 Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 10.09.2013 between the Ops no.1 to 3, complainants and Op4 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE CC NO. 114 OF 2015 WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant : For Opposite parties : Affidavit evidence of Srinivas Kalyan Sri Hari Challa, as RW1 (on behalf Narisepalli, Complainant Op No.1). Smt Sita Mahalakshmi, as RW2 ( on behalf of Op4) EXHIBITS MARKED For Complainants : Ex.A1 Copy of agreement of sale dated 20.06.2012 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant Ex.A2 Copy of Sale Deed dated 03.08.2012 executed by the Op1 in favour of the complainants Ex.A3 Copy of payment receipt dated 03.08.2012 for Rs.3,08,050/- towards registration charges Ex.A4 Copy of construction agreement dated 03.08.2012 executed by Op1 in favour of the complainants Ex.A5 Copy of Certificate of Encumberance on property dated 13.08.2012 Ex.A6 Copy of Home Loan Santion letter dated 28.06.2012 Ex.A7 Copy of demand letter for the release of first disbursement dated 28.06.2012 Ex.A8 Copy of Statement Criteria of the complainant no.1 dated 19.05.2015 Ex.A9 Copy of statement of account of the complainant from 15.05.2012 to 30.08.2012 Ex.A10 Copy of complaint dated 14.03.2015 given to PS Ramachandrapuram Ex.A11 Copy of FIR No.124 of 2015 dated 15.03.2015 Ex.A12 Office copy of legal notice dated 26.03.2015 got issued by the complainants to the Opposite parties Ex.A13 Original postal receipts and postal acknowledgements For opposite party no.4 Ex.B19 Copy of demand letter for the release of first disbursement dated 28.06.2012 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE CC NO. 121 OF 2015 WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant : For Opposite parties : Affidavit evidence of Venkata Satyasiva Sri Hari Challa, as RW1 (on behalf Prasad Patna, Complainant Op No.1). Mirza Yousuf Ali Baig, as RW2 ( on behalf of Op4) EXHIBITS MARKED For Complainants : Ex.A1 Copy of agreement of sale dated 27.04.2009 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant Ex.A2 Copy of receipt bearing No.03199 dated 12.04.2009 for Rs.25,000/- Ex.A3 Copy of receipt bearing No.03277 dated 23.04.2009 for Rs.2,25,000/- Ex.A4 Copy of receipt bearing No.03486 dated 12.06.2009 for Rs.Rs.4,00,000/- Ex.A5 Copy of receipt bearing No.03590 dated 15.06.2009 for Rs.7,00,000/- Ex.A6 Copy of Home Loan Sanction letter dated 15.06.2009 Ex.A7 Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 27.04.2009 between the complainants, Ops Ex.A8 Office copy of legal notice dated 15.04.2015 got issued by the complainants to the Opposite parties Ex.A9 Original postal receipts and postal returned covers For opposite party no.4 Ex.B19 Copy of agreement of sale dated 27.04.2009 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant Ex.B20 Copy of Housing Loan Application of the complainants. Ex.B21 Copy of letter of the complainant requesting for inclusion of rental income for sanction of housing loan Ex.B22 Copy of Home Loan Sanction Letter dated 15.06.2009 Ex.B23 Copy of Memorandum of Term Loan Agreement for Home Loan Granted to Public dated 15.06.2009 Ex.B24 Copy of Deed of Undertaking dated 15.06.2009 Ex.B25 Copy of Agreement to Mortgage 15.06.2009 Ex.B26 Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 27.04.2009 between the complainants, Ops Ex.B27 Copy of complainant's annual gross salary package and other emoluments Forum-16 issued by TCS Ex.B28 Copy of appointment letter, Pay Slip & Form-16 issued by ING Vysya Bank Ex.B29 Copy of Bank Statement APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE CC NO. 131 OF 2015 WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant : For Opposite parties : Affidavit evidence of Hanumantha Rao Sri Hari Challa, as RW1 (on behalf Nangunoori, Complainant Op No.1). Mrs Sita Mahalaxmi, as RW2 ( on behalf of Op4) EXHIBITS MARKED For Complainants : Ex.A1 Copy of agreement of sale dated 17.07.2012 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant Ex.A2 Copy of receipt bearing No.10144 dated 26.06.2012 for Rs.1,00,000/- Ex.A3 Copy of receipt bearing No.10146 dated 30.06.2012 for Rs.1,50,000/- Ex.A4 Copy of receipt bearing No.10853 dated 17.07.2012 for Rs.Rs.7,83,412/- Ex.A5 Copy of receipt bearing No.936 dated 24.08.2013 for Rs.80,829/- Ex.A6 Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 26.07.2012 between the complainants, Ops Ex.A7 Copy of Home Loan Sanction letter dated 26.07.2012 Ex.A8 Copy of Bank Statement from 26.07.2012 to 14.02.2015 of the complainant Ex.A9 Copy of authorization given by the complainants to Hanumantha Rao Nangunoori dated 01.06.2015 Ex.A10 Copy of Power of Attorney given by the complainants to Hanumantha Rao Nangunoori dated 29.01.2016 Ex.A11 Office copy of legal notice dated 16.03.2015 got issued by the complainants to the Opposite parties Ex.A12 Original postal receipts and postal returned covers For opposite party no.4 Ex.B19 Copy of demand letter for release of first disbursement by the complainant dated 25.07.2012 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE CC NO. 132 OF 2015 WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant : For Opposite parties : Affidavit evidence of V.Jagadesh Kumar Sri Hari Challa, as RW1 (on behalf Complainant No.1 Op No.1). Mrs Sita Mahalaxmi, as RW2 ( on behalf of Op4) EXHIBITS MARKED For Complainants : Ex.A1 Copy of agreement of sale dated 24.08.2012 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant Ex.A2 Copy of receipt bearing No.10810 dated 27.07.2012 for Rs.50,000/- Ex.A3 Copy of receipt bearing No.10814 dated 05.08.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.A4 Copy of receipt bearing No.11051 dated 28.08.2012 for Rs.Rs.6,05,800/- Ex.A5 Copy of receipt bearing No.11054 dated 07.09.2012 for Rs.6,00,000/- Ex.A6 Copy of Home Loan Sanction letter dated 10.04.2015 Ex.A7 Copy of Tripartite Agreement dated between the complainants, Ops Ex.A8 Copy of Agreement for Home Loan dated 8.09.2012 Ex.A9 Copy of letter dated 03.09.2012 of the Op1 demanding for release of loan amount to the complainant Ex.A10 Copy of Bank statement dated 16.04.2015 Ex.A11 Copy of Bank statement dated 16.04.2015 Ex.A12 Copy of complaint dated 14.03.2015 given to PS Ramachandrapuram Ex.A13 Copy of FIR No.127/2015 dated 15.03.2015 Ex.A14 Office copy of legal notice dated 16.06.2015 got issued by the complainants to the Opposite parties Ex.A15 Original postal receipts and postal returned covers APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE CC NO. 142 OF 2015 WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant : For Opposite parties : Affidavit evidence of Venkata Rao Sri Hari Challa, as RW1 (on behalf Moparthi Complainant No.2 Op No.1). Sri GVSS Chalamayya, as RW2 ( on behalf of Op4) EXHIBITS MARKED For Complainants : Ex.A1 Copy of agreement of sale dated 26.10.2008 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant Ex.A2 Copy of receipt bearing No.1887 dated 18.08.2007 for Rs.11,20,390/- Ex.A3 Copy of receipt bearing No.02153 dated 18.01.2008 for Rs.76,000/- Ex.A4 Copy of receipt bearing No.02156 dated 19.01.2008 for Rs.Rs.599/- Ex.A5 Copy of receipt bearing No.02421 dated 26.07.2008 for Rs.16,50,713/- Ex.A6 Copy of receipt bearing No.03912 dated 29.09.2009 for Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.A7 Copy of Home Loan Sanction letter dated 10.04.2015 Ex.A8 Copy of DD dated 26.07.2008 for Rs.16,50,713/- Ex.A9 Copy of demand letter of Op1 for release of amount of Rs.16,50,713/- by the complainant dated 26.07.2008 Ex.A10 Copy of certificate dated 03.06.2009 issed by Op4 certifying that the complainant cleared the loan amount Ex.A11 Copy of letter dated 4.06.2009 issued by Op4 stating that the complainant has repaid the entire dues of the loan amount. Ex.A12 Copy of Bank Statement from 01.06.2009 to 04.06.2009 Ex.A13 Copy of Calculation Sheet of the opposite party no.1 Ex.A14 Office copy of legal notice dated 03.07.2015 got issued by the complainants to the Opposite parties Ex.A15 Original postal receipts, acknowledgements and postal returned covers For Opposite Party no.4 Ex.B19 Copy of Op4 statement from 11.07.2008 to 26.02.2016 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE CC NO. 143 OF 2015 WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant : For Opposite parties : Affidavit evidence of Bhasker Bangari Sri Hari Challa, as RW1 (on behalf Complainant Op No.1). EXHIBITS MARKED For Complainants : Ex.A1 Copy of agreement of sale dated 23.04.2009 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant Ex.A2 Copy of receipt bearing No.03129 dated 17.04.2009 for Rs.25,000/- Ex.A3 Copy of receipt bearing No.03130 dated 17.04.2009 for Rs.2,25,000/- Ex.A4 Copy of receipt bearing No.03573 dated 15.05.2009 for Rs.4,50,387/- Ex.A5 Copy of receipt bearing No.03572 dated 15.05.2009 for Rs.16,34,237/- Ex.A6 Copy of Home Loan Sanction Letter dated 15.05.2009 Ex.A7 Copy of Bank Statement of the complainant from 14.05.2009 to 24.10.2011 Ex.A8 Copy of legal notice dated 16.01.2015 got issued by the complainants to the Opposite parties Ex.A9 Original Postal Receipts Ex.A10 General Power of Attorney given by the complainants to Bhasker Bangari dated 20.01.2015 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE CC NO. 148 OF 2015 WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant : For Opposite parties : Affidavit evidence of Pulluri Hari Kishan Sri Hari Challa, as RW1 (on behalf Complainant Op No.1). Smt Bindu Janardhanan as RW2 (on behalf of Op4) EXHIBITS MARKED For Complainants : Ex.A1 Copy of agreement of sale dated 28.10.2009 executed by the Op No.1 in favour of the complainant Ex.A2 Copy of receipt bearing No.03735 dated 16.08.2009 for Rs.1,01,000/- Ex.A3 Copy of receipt bearing No.03739 dated 20.08.2009 for Rs.1,50,000/- Ex.A4 Copy of receipt bearing No.04715 dated 01.03.2010 for Rs.2,96,619 and copy of DD dated 01.03.2010 for Rs.2,96,619/- Ex.A5 Copy of receipt bearing No.5424 dated 29.03.2010 for Rs.9,38,500/- Ex.A6 Copy of Home Loan Sanction Letter dated 27.03.2010 Ex.A7 Copy of Customer Information Sheet of the complainant Ex.A8 Copy of email dated 30.08.2014 Ex.A9 Copy of email dated 14.03.2015 Ex.A10 Office copy of legal notice dated 03.06.2015 got issued by the complainants to the Opposite parties Ex.A11 Original Postal Receipts 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 photographs of flat occupants occupying the completed flats. PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated: 27.02.2017 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER