IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that housing construction agreements fall under the Consumer Protection Act, establishing that both parties were bound by the definitions of 'consumer' and 'service'.

ORDER :

(Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.) :

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :

“…..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining the order dt.17-11-2023 passed in C.C.No.69 of 2019 on the file of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State of Telangana at Hyderabad, respondent No.2, which was confirmed in First Appeal No.97 of 2024 dated.18-03-2024 on the file of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi is being illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Articles 14 and 300 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by declaring respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction…..”.

2. Heard Sri.Koppula Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri Mahadev Anyarambhatla, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The 1st petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.2-107/2/1, Plot No.28, admeasuring 256 sq. yards in Sy.Nos.305 and 309/B situated at Sreeramnagar Colony, Gangaram, Chandanagar Village, Serlingampally, GHMC, Ranga Reddy District. The 2nd petitioner is the father of the 1st petitioner, who is a resident of the USA and issued a GPA in favour of the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner obtained residential building permission from GHMC by mortgaging 10% of the built up area as per GHMC norms in 2017.

(ii) While the construction work was in progress, the 4th respondent approached the 2nd petitioner to purchase a flat. After due negotiations, the 2nd petitioner agreed to sell one flat for an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- to the 4th respondent on 28.12.2017. In token thereof, an amount of Rs.14,80,000/- was paid towards advance sale consideration. However, respondent No.4 failed to arrange the balance amount. Later, he requested the return of the advance amount, and it was returned to him on 20.09.2018 before the witnesses namely, Smt. K.Padma W/o. Gopala Krishna Raju and Sri V. Nageswara Rao, S/o.Venkatarao.

(iii) While things stood thus, respondents 4 and 5 filed C.C.No.69 of 2019 before the 2nd respondent-State Commission under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) against the petitioners seeking a direction to the petitioners to execute the registered sale deed with regard to the scheduled flat in favour of respondents 4 and 5 and further sought a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as house rent to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from October 2018 till the date of execution of the registered sale deed and the delivery of vacant physical possession of the scheduled flat.

(iv) The 2nd respondent, while allowing C.C.No.69 of 2019 on 17.11.2023, observed as follows:-

“Based on the foregoing discussion, we are of the emphatic view that opposite parties 1 and 2 have been deficient in their services, thereby depriving the complainants from owning a flat inspite of paying a substantial amount, therefore, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable not only to execute the Sale Deed but also to pay compensation for making the complainant wait for around 5 years, which might have caused severe hardship and mental agony to the complainant.

10) In the result, complaint is allowed in part with following directions:

i). the complaint no.1 is directed to deposit the balance sale consideration in this Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, upon which the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the complainant No.1 as per the terms and conditions of Agreement (Ex.A1) for Flat No.101, 1st floor, admeasuring 975 sq.fts in Sree Nilayam, within one month of such deposit of amount by the complainant;

ii). Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the hardship and mental agony caused to the complainants;

iii). Opposite parties 1 and 2 a