SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 971

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Krishna P. Evuru – Appellant
Versus
1. Sri. V. Sudhakar – Respondent
SC/36/CC/34/2016



BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

C.C.No.34 OF 2016 Between:

1. Mr. Krishna P. Evuru, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: Software Professional, R/o. flat No.710, Lake Hill Way Alpharetta, GA-30022 (USA), Rep.by his Power of Attorney Holder,Mr. Sudhakar Konda, R/o. Flat No.302, Sai Dutta Residency, Post Office Lane, Balaji Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 500872.

… Complainant And

1. Sri V. Sudhakar, S/o. Late. V. Basveswar Rao, Aged about: 62 years, R/o. Plot No.6, Kavuri Hills, Hyderabad – 500033.

2. Sri V. Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. Late. V. Basveswara Rao, Aged about: 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.601, Sai Balaji Towers, Kavuri Hills, Hyderabad.

3. Smt. V, Sarada, W/o. V. Sudhakar, Aged about: 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.759, Road No.39, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are Rep. by their General Power of Attorney Holder, M/s. S & S Green Projects, Pvt. Ltd., A part IX Company under the Companies Act, 1956, Formerly known as M/s. S & S Constructions, A Partnership firm, having its Office at T1, Green View Plaza, Road No.1 & 6B, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033, Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri, M. Vijaya Sai, S/o. M. Anjaneyulu. 4. M/s. S & S Green Projects Pvt. Ltd., A part IX Company under the Companies Act, 1956, Formerly known as M/s. S & S Constructions, A Partnership firm, having its Office at T1, Green View Plaza, Road No.1 & 6B, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033, Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri, M. VijayaSai, S/o. M. Anjaneyulu.

5. HDFC Bank Ltd., 3-6-310, Hyderguda Road,Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad – 500029, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory. (As per the orders of this forum dated 12.07.2024). …Opposite Parties Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. Prabhakar Sripada Counsel for the Opp. Parties No.1 to 3 : M/s. Mr. N. Srinivasa Rao Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.4 : Mr. M.R.K. Chakravarthi Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.5 : M/s. B. Ravindra Reddy QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO - PRESIDING OFFICER-

MEMBER - (JUDICIAL).

&

HON’BLE SMT.R.S.RAJESHREE, MEMBER (NON JUDICIAL).

THURSDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE ORDER:(PERHON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER, NON-

JUDICIAL)

1. 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 “G

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top