BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

C.C.No.12 OF 2018 Between:

Smt. Pavvada Lakshmi Sulochana, W/o. GopalaKrishnaiaha, D/o. ChundruSubba Rao, Aged about: 60 years, Occ: Homemaker, R/o. Flat No.104, Seven Hills, Munuswamy Arcade, H.No.12-10-403.

… Complainant And

1. The Accountant’s General Office, Co-operative Housing society Ltd., Rep. by its President, Sri V. Sukumar Pillai, O/o. The Accountant General’s Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. Mr. V. Sukumar Pillai, S/o. Not Known to the Complainant, Rep. by its President, Sri V. SukumarPillai, O/o. The Accountant General’s Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

3. Mr. T. Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Not Known to the Complainant, Rep. by its Secretary, Sri V. Sukumar Pillai, O/o. The Accountant General’s Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 4. M/s. Sri Venkateswara Developers, A partnership firm, having its office at Sri Mahalakshmi Residency, 4^th Venture of the AG Office Co-operative Housing Society, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Managing Partner, Sri A. Venkateswara Reddy, S/o. Sri A. N. Reddy, (Opposite Party No.4 is only a proforma party only).

…Opposite parties Counsel for the Complainants : Mr. K. Pavan Kumar Counsel for the Opp. Parties No.1 to 3: Mr. G. KalyanChakravarthy Counsel for the Opp. Parties No.4 is proforma party QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO - PRESIDING OFFICER-

MEMBER - (JUDICIAL).

&

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

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE ORDER:(PERHON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER, NON-

JUDICIAL)

1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainants U/s. 17(1)(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 on 06.01.2018 against the Opposite Party to direct him as follows:-

2. Brief facts of the case:-The case of the Complainant is that the Accountant’s general office cooperating housing society limited has undertaken a project for construction of apartments for their members under the name and style Sri Mahalakshmi residency 14^th venture situated at survey No.64/P, of Hyderguda Village and Sy. No.64/P, 65/P, 66/P, 121/P, 122/P, 124/P, 125/P & 126/P, Upper Palli Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, RR District. As some of the flats were not booked by the members, the Society offered the same to outsiders and also released a brochure explaining the salient features of the project. The complainant being lured by the amenities being provided, had decided to purchase a flat in the project being developed by the Opposite Party by blindly believing the promises of Opposite Party, considering their reputation that it is the society formed by AG’s office and hoping to get a quality construction. The Opposite Party also promised to provide the following common amenities:-

Common amenities Club House:-

 A well-equipped Gymnasium.

 Table Tennis  Pool Tables  Chess, Carom and other indoor games  T.V. Room & Library  Guest Rooms  Restaurant Outdoors Amenities:

 Swimming Pool  Beautiful Landscaped Garden  Entrance Plaza  Children’s Play area Security  Paved Garden Walk  Basket Ball Post  Outdoor Exercise Area  Toilets at Ground floor for workers.

Being attracted by the above amenities and the fact that the Opposite Party had already obtained the building permit vide proceedings No.16953/HC/SZ/Cir-6/SZ2012, dated 19.11.12, she proceeded with purchase by paying an advance of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 18.07.2011 for flat bearing No. 201 on second floor in E Block, with an undivided share of 70 sq. yds of land for a total cost of Rs.27,78,080/- which includes land cost, total built-up area and amenities. That she had paid the total cost of Rs.27,78,080/- on various dates and the Opposite Part had executed a sale deed in favour of the Complainant vide document No.2899/2016 dated 05.03.2016. That she had also paid the registration charges, VAT etc., further the Opposite Part had also obtained the occupancy certificate vide proceeding No.2080/10/01/2012/OC, dated 09.02.2016. Despite receiving the total sale consideration and e