Back
TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
K. Ranga Rao, Presiding Officer Member (Judicial) and Smt. R.S. Rajeshree, Member (Non Judicial)
Krishna P. Evuru – Complainant
versus
V. Sudhakar and Ors. – Opp. Parties
C.C. No.34 of 2016
Decided on 17.6.2025
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 3 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 100] – Consumer complaint – Maintainability – Additional remedy – Remedies available under Consumer Protection Act are in alternate to other available remedies but, not in derogation of any other law – This is a complaint filed by Complainant seeking refund of money paid by him – Whereas, proceedings under SARFAESI Act have been initiated by Bank for recovery of loan amount which has no bearing on present complaint filed by Complainant – Present complaint is maintainable before State Commission. (Para 11)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24-A [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 69] – Consumer complaint – Limitation – In an agreement where a promise is made by Developer to complete construction and handover the same within a stipulated period, cause of action continues until date of handing over of possession of completed flat – There exists continues cause of action until handing over of possession of flat – Complaint is well within limitation period – When Opposite Party is not disputing transaction with Complainant, merely based on technical grounds complaint cannot be dismissed – Opposite Party had admitted that there is delay in construction, however delay was due to global recession and agitations for bifurcation of States – OP directed to refund money Complainant with 9% interest. (Paras 13, 17, 18, 22 and 23)
Result: Complaint allowed in part.
ORDER
Smt. R.S. Rajeshree, Member (Non Judicial)—This is a complaint filed by the Complainant U/s. 17(1)(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 12.02.2016 against the Opposite Parties to direct him as follows:-
(i) To direct the Opposite Party No.4 to refund of Rs.85,39,151/- along with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
(ii) Treat the agreement of sale dated 17th June, 2010 between Complainant and the Opposite Party No.4 as having been rescinded and therefore direct the Opposite Party No.4 to clear the entire loan amount along with interest and penalties to the HDFC Bank i.e., Opposite Party No.5.
(iii) Award Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment caused to the Complainant by the Opposite Party No.4.
(iv) Award the costs of the complaint and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts of the case:- The case of the Complainant is that, Opposite Party No.1 to 3 are the owners of land admeasuring 5 acres 38 guntas situated at Sy.No.21 of Khajaguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District. Opposite Party No.4 is a pvt. Ltd., company and is into the business of Real Estate. The Opposite Party No.1 to 3 have envisaged a scheme for construction of 416 ownership apartments with G+14 floors and two cellars for parking in schedule A property. Opposite Party No.1 to 3 have entered into an Development Agreement cum GPA with Opposite Party No.4 vide document No. 10975/2006, 13140/2005 & 14049/2005 respectively. Upon which the Opposite Party No.4 had obtained the permission for construction from the concerned authorities vide permit No. 7164/BP/CDA/2007. The officials of Opposite Party No.4 made the complainant believe that since the permission was already obtained, a multi storied residential apartment would be built under the name & style “Green Grace” with amenities like club house and that the flat would be delivered within 24 months from the date of agreement. Based on the promises made by the Opposite Parties the complainant agreed to purchase a flat bearing No.8, in 4th floor, in Block-B, admeasuring 2420 sq.ft., with a proportionate undivided share of land, for a valid sale consideration and entered into an agreement of sale with Opposite Party No.1 to 4 on 17.06.2010. That the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- on different dates and for the balance sale consideration he approached the Opposite Party No.5 Bank for a loan of Rs.57,50,000/-. However, the Opposite Party No.5 bank had sanctioned a loan of Rs.43,66,625/-.
That as per the agreement of sale the total sale consideration of the flat is Rs.63,56,250/- which includes Rs.3,02,500/- towards water and electricity charges and deposit for the purpose of metering and Rs.1,21,000/- towards corpus fund.
And the balance sale consideration was payable in the following manner:-
|
| % of Balance Sale consideration | Amount in Rs. |
| On completion of Foundation | 25% | 14,33,313/- |
| On completion of slab for the Respective Floor | 25% | 14,33,312/- |
| On completion of Walls & Frames | 25% | 14,33,313/- |
| On completion of Flooring | 25% | 14,33,312/- |
The Complainant had paid the Rs.12,50,000/- on the following dates i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- on 19.09.2006, Rs.6,00,000/- on 27.09.2006, Rs.2,00,000/- on 19.10.2006 & Rs.2,50,000/- on 23.10.2006 and the Opposite Party No.5 bank had released the sum of Rs.43,66,625/- on three different dates viz., 27.08.2009, 31.03.2010, and 30,01 2013. That though the basic cost of the flat is Rs.59,32,750, yet the Opposite Parties have collected Rs.49,89,625/- which includes the car parking and amenities charges. After receiving Rs.56,16,625/- the Opposite Party No.4 had diverted the amounts to non-construction purpose and abandoned the project due to which the project has been delayed. That as per clause 2.4 of Home Loan Agreement the Opposite Party No.5, bank was bound to disburse the sanctioned loan amount in lumpsum or in suitable instalments with reference to the nee
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
