BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

C.C.NO.97 OF 2017 Between:

Mr. A. Subramanyam, S/o. Sri Seshapani, Aged about: 27 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee at 23, Gayatri Gardens, Balaji Hills, Nizampet, Hyderabad – 500090.

… Complainant And M/s. N.V. Rattaiah, & Co., A Partnership firm, Rep. by its Partner, Mr. N. Hari Hara Prasad, at Flat No.1-304, Divya Sakthi Complex, H.No.7-1-58, Ameerpet, Hyderabad – 500016.

… Opposite party Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. S. Srinivasa Rao Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Mr. V. Gouri Shankar Rao QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO - PRESIDING OFFICER-

MEMBER - (JUDICIAL).

&

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

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR ORDER: (PER HON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER, N-JUDICIAL)

1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant u/s. 17(1)(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 on 16.05.2017 against the Opposite Party to direct them as follows:-

(i) To execute the registered sale deed in favour of the Complainant in respect of the flat No.207, in second floor admeasuring 1560 Sq. feet in Block No.8, Yamini in the Layout known as DIVYA SREE SHAKTI VILLAGIO LE TORRI, in Sy. Nos. 20/AA, 21, 22 & 23, Mayuri Nagar, Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District, along with one car parking in cellar.

(ii) To direct the Opposite Party to pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-

towards mental agony, (iii) To award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The brief facts of the case:- The specific case of the complainant is that, the Opposite Party is into the business of construction and was developing property in survey number 20/AA, 21, 22 and 23 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Having come to know of the same, the complainant along with one of his friend Uday Kumar Kambham, had approached the opposite party in the month of December 2012, and enquired about the project being developed by the Opposite Party. However, the friend of the Complainant did not continue to purchase but the Complainant after negotiations had proceeded for purchase of a flat bearing No. 207, in second floor admeasuring 1560 sft., block No.-8, along with one car parking in the cellar, for a total sale consideration of Rs.47,96,000/- agreeing for the same the complainant paid the following amounts:-

AMOUNT DATE Rs.50,000/- 03.02.2013 Rs.50,000/- 23.02.2013 Rs.50,000/- 31.03.2013 Rs.50,000/- 28.04.2013 Rs.50,000/- 11.05.2013 Rs.50,000/- 31.05.2013 Rs.50,000/- 27.07.2013 Upon which the opposite party had issued an allotment letter dated 31.07.2013; thereafter the Complainant paid further amount of Rs.7,50,000/- on different dates in between 24.08.2013 to 25.12.2014. On 22.07.2014 an agreement of sale was entered between the parties. In this way the Complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.11,00,000/- towards the part sale consideration and the balance amount of Rs.36,96,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Subsequently, the Opposite Party had sent a draft sale deed, but the Complainant was not convinced with the clause No.8 of draft sale deed, as such he had addressed letters to the Opposite Party, opposing the same on 16.01.2016, 20.01.2016 and 20.02.2016, requesting the Opposite Party to arrange for a meeting and seeking clarification on clause number 8 of draft sale deed; but the Opposite Party failed to respond and all of a sudden on 06.04.2016 sent a letter to the Complainant stating that the allotment of flat has been cancelled, as the Complainant has violated clause No.5 of the agreement. That this act of unilaterally cancelling the allotment of flat by the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency of service and that as per clause 9 of the agreement of sale, there is a specific procedure prescribed for termination of the agreement of sale and none of the reasons mentioned in the cancell