BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

AE No.05/2025 AGAINST ORDERS IN E.A.No.17/2020 In C.C.No. 225/2016 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I,HYDERABAD Between:

M/s Suchirindia Developers Private Limited, Presently known as M/s Suchir India Infratech Pvt., Ltd., Having its registered office at 50-B, Journalist Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Mr.Y.Kiran Kumar.

……Appellant/Respondent/opposite party And:

Ms. Luxmi Priyadarshini Bhattacharya, D/o Lt. Col. Swapan Kumar Bhattacharya, Aged about : 34 years, Occ.: IT Consultant R/o Plot No.8, New Santosh Nagar Colony, Hyderabad.

…..Respondent/Petitioner/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Respondent/opposite party :

M/s. LAD Legal Services LLP Counsel for the Respondent/Petitioner/Complainant :

M/s.P. Naveen Kumar HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER – (NON-JUDICIAL)

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

THURSDAY, THE 12^th DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX *******

Order :

PER HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 27(A) of Consumer Protection Act,

1986, R/w Sec.73 (1) (a) of C.P.Act, 2019 by the opposite party,

aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad in EA 17/2020 in CC 225/2016,.

2. The parties are herein after referred to as they were arrayed before the District Commission, as complainant and opposite party.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal in execution are that the Complainant initially filed CC 225/2016 on the file of District Commission-I, Hyderabad. The said CC was allowed by the District Commission vide order dated 22.11.2019.

The following order was passed by the Commission below :-

“In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and inconvenience to her and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of service of this order”.

4. Aggrieved by the above order, the opposite party preferred FA 141/2020 before this Commission and the appeal was dismissed by this Commission, vide order dated 10.07.2024. The order passed by this Commission is reproduced below:-

“In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- payable to the respondent/complainant, by confirming the impugned order under appeal dated 22.11.2019 in CC 225/2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of the order. The Respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw Rs.2,30,000/- deposited by the appellant/opposite party along with accrued interest while preferring the appeal after the lapse of revision time”.

5. While dismissing the appeal, this Commission imposed further costs of Rs.20,000/- and permitted the complainant to withdraw the statutory deposit along with accrued interest.

At the time of preferring the appeal, the opposite party deposited Rs.2,30,000/-.

6. The complainant filed the cheque petition to receive the amount after lapse of revision time. The amount deposited along with accumulated interest amounted to Rs.3,37,518/-.

The controversy that needs to be addressed in the Appeal Execution (AE) is whether the Complainant is entitled to only Rs.5,00,000/- plus Rs.30,000/- towards costs or is she entitled to receive the said amount along with accrued interest.

7. As per the complainant’s calculations, the opposite party deposited 50% before the State Commission at the time of preferring the appeal vide FA 142/2020-

i.e. 50% of Rs.5,00,000/- = Rs.2,50,000/-

50% of Rs.10,000/- costs = Rs. 5,000/-

_______________

Rs.2,55,000/-

________________

8. She has only received this amount along with interest which comes to Rs.3,37,518/-.

The complainant claims that she has to receive the balance amount of Rs.2,50,00