BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.969 OF 2022 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.617 OF 2009, ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD Between:

1. M/s.Gandham Associates, Rep. by Gandham Ramchandar Rao, S/o.Late Sri G.J.Suryanarayana, Aged 50 years, Occ: Builder, R/o.Having office and residence in Flat No.104, first floor, palmall court, No.10-3-7, Plot No.3, Entrenchment Road, East Marredpally, Secunderabad.

2. Sri Katuri Venkateshwar Rao (Since died)

....Appellants/Opposite Parties And Sri M.Radhakrishna Reddy, S/o.Dr.M.Mohan Reddy, R/o.USA, Rep. by his GPA holder, Dr.M.Mohan Reddy, S/o.M.Ramgopal Reddy, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Pvt.Medical Practitioner, R/o.10-2-289/36, Flat No.401 and 402, Annapurna Mansion, Shantinagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

....Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/Opp.Parties : M/s.KRR Associates Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : M/s.R.Subramanian QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN…IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU….MEMBER-JUDICIAL MONDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR *******

Order : (Per Sri V.V.Seshu Babu, Hon’ble Member-Judicial)

1. This appeal is filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying this Commission to allow the appeal by setting aside the orders dated 14.11.2022 in CC.No.617 of 2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders as this Commission deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and interest of justice.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellants are the Opposite Parties and the Respondent is the Complainant in CC.No.617/2009.

3. The brief facts of the complaint are that – the Complainant purchased two flats bearing No.401 and 402 from the Opposite Parties in „Annapurna Mansion‟ 4th Floor, premises No.10-2- 289/36, Shantinagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad and entered into an Agreement of Sale on 09.03.2007 for the purchase of schedule A & B including two car parking spaces with an undivided proportionate share of land in the said premises. Subsequently, another agreement of sale was executed on 16.03.2007 to facilitate the Complainant to procure higher loan amount from the bank along with an agreement of construction of semi-finished unit to submit the same to the bank. A registered sale deed was also executed by both parties on 02.04.2007.

4. It is submitted that as per sale deed, an undivided share of 70 square yards along with two car parking slots in the stilt would be allotted to the Complainant. It is alleged that despite payment of entire sale consideration, the Opposite Parties delivered the flats in unfinished state without two car parking slots to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties failed to complete the work as per the specifications and terms and conditions of the sale deed. Further, the flats were handed over after nine months instead of three months as per the assurance of Opposite Parties. The Complainant incurred huge expenditure by paying rent and interest on loan as pre-EMI for 7 months.

5. It is further submitted that the Complainant issued two legal notices dated 15.05.2008 and 22.10.2008 to Opposite Parties but there was no reply. The Opposite Parties issued legal notice dated 10.06.2008 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to which reply was given by the Complainant‟s counsel. The Opposite Parties also filed civil suit bearing O.S.No.270/2009 against the Complainant for recovery of money. Despite paying the entire sale consideration of the said two flats along with two car parking slots, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the same to the Complainant which amounts to deficiency of service; hence, the complaint.

6. The Opposite Party No.1 filed written version denying the allegations made by the Complainant. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable and the