BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.752 OF 2024 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.73/2020 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY Between:

The Executive Engineer, Western Division, TS Housing Board, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72.

…….Appellant/ Opposite Party And:

Smt. A.Saraswathi, W/o Sri A.Sharanappa, Aged about 70 years, Occ.: Household, R/o Flat No.412, Block – 3, R.V.Brundavan Apartment, Road No.1, Balajinagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad.

……..Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/ Opposite Party : Sri D.Ranganath Kumar.

Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Sri P.Chenchuramaiah QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL MONDAY, THE 03^rd DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE **********

Order : PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL

1. The appeal is filed by the complainant U/S 15 of 1986, by the opposite party, aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2023 in CC 73/2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy, where under the complaint was partly allowed directing the opposite party to register the house in favour of complainant after collecting genuine/reasonable/justifiable charges, as per the terms of the agreement and directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/- within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant was allotted Lower Income Group House No.1-49 at Zaheerabad by the opposite party after some consideration was received as an advance; that on 21.03.2009 opposite party issued a notice with a demand to pay in total Rs.61,983/- and the same was paid by the complainant with that total consideration was paid; that the complainant has been residing in the same house for the last 20 years; that the opposite party is not executing the registered sale deed despite several demands; that complainant gave a notice on 17.03.2015 and also several letters subsequently without any reply from the opposite party; that on 03.10.2018, notice by RPAD was sent to the opposite party who issued the reply demanding the complainant to pay in all Rs.1,88,922/- and that the actions of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service;

hence, the complaint.

3. The Opposite Party despite receipt of notice, not appeared and not filed any written version.

[

4. Before the Commission below, complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to A16. The complainant filed written arguments.

5. The Commission below, settled the following points for discussion viz..:

 Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

 If so, to what relief?

6. Having heard the complainant counsel and basing on the material available on record, the Commission below passed the order as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the opposite party with the following grounds:

 The order of the Commission below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

 The Commission below failed to appreciate that the opposite party not appeared only due to COVID-19 Pandemic.

 The Commission below has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the settled legal position that a dispute regarding the “pricing”, the amounts demanded by the Housing Board towards consideration is not a “Consumer Dispute”.

 The Commission below failed to go through the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble NCDRC.

 The findings of the Commission below are self-

contradictory.

With these grounds and others that will be urged at the time of arguments, requested to set aside the order of the Commission below by allowing the appeal.

7. Now the points for determination in the appeal are :

(1) Whether there is no “Consumer Dispute” to decide the complaint?

(2) Whether the order under appeal is sustainable in law?

(3) Relief?

8. Heard the arguments on both sides, giving a liberty to file relevant