Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 6363
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
Meena Ramanathan, Presiding Officer, K. Ranga Rao, Member, V.V. Seshubabu, Member
MR.SRINIVAS INALA – Appellant
Versus
M/S JAIN HOUSING CONSTRUCTIONS LTD – Respondent
E.A.No.31/2024 | C.C.No.25/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Gourisankara Rao
For the Respondents: Kingstubb & Kasiva Associates
Physical possession of a property does not extinguish a developer's liability to pay delay compensation if the decree specifically mandates payment until the issuance of an occupancy certificate.
Headnote:The petitioner filed an execution application under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking enforcement of a previous order in C.C. No. 25/2022. The original order directed the respondent to provide an occupancy certificate, complete common areas, and pay delay compensation until the date of the occupancy certificate. The respondent contended that since physical possession had been handed over, no further rental compensation was due. The primary issue was whether the delivery of possession relieves the respondent of the liability to pay compensation until the occupancy certificate is obtained. The court reasoned that the original decree specifically tied the compensation to the occupancy certificate, and the respondent's failure to produce said certificate meant the liability continued regardless of physical possession. Furthermore, the court noted that an executing court cannot entertain new defenses that should have been raised during the original trial. In the result, this petition is disposed off with the observation that the petitioner/complainant is entitled to the compensation as per the decree.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the execution petition and the dispute over compensation calculations based on possession versus occupancy certificate. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. liability for delay compensation persists until the occupancy certificate is obtained, regardless of physical possession. (Para 6) |
| 3. new claims regarding amenities cannot be entertained in execution proceedings without supporting documentary evidence. (Para 7) |
| 4. executing courts cannot entertain defenses that should have been raised during the original trial to prevent retrial. (Para 8) |
| 5. entitlement of the decree holder to compensation as per the original decree. (Para 9) |
Order :
HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN - PRESIDING OFFICER, MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)
1. This Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Complainant, u/s 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying this Commission to punish the respondent/opposite party for intentionally failing to implement the orders of this Commission, made in CC 25/2022, dated 12.01.2024 and pass such other order or orders, as this Commission deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
2. Subsequent to passing of the order and filing of the present EA, the counsel representing the complainant represented that the water storage capacity is not in accordance with the other Blocks and also filed calculations showing the amount entitled for. On the calculation memo filed by the petitioner, the respondent submitted the reply vide memo dated 23.06.2026. Both sides were heard and reserved for orders.
3. A perusal of the impugned order in CC 25/2022, dated 12.01.2024, discloses the following directions :-
(i) To submit occupancy certificate of the flats in fifth Block;
(ii) To complete the construction of all the common areas as per the brochure, terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, sale deed and construction agreement;
(iii) To pay charges for the delay in delivery of possession @ Rs.14,408/- per month from 30.07.2019 till the date of occupancy certificate;
(iv) The complainant is liable to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.10,76,843/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of occupancy certificate till the date of actual payment;
(v) The complainant is also directed to pay the GST amount on the flat as fixed by the GST authorities or subject to the proof of payment made by the opposite party;
(vi) The opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant and
(vii) Both sides are at liberty to set off the payments to be made to the other side from the payments to be received respectively,
Time for compliance was 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the opposite party shall pay the amounts payable by its with interest @ 8% p.a.
4. Vide this Memo, the complainant has filed calculations showing that he is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,97,571/- as on date of filing of memo i.e. 23.06.2026 and that the opposite party has to pay @ Rs.14,408/- per month from July 2026 till date of receipt of occupancy certificate.
5. This has been challenged by the opposite party vide memo dated 23.06.2026 with the following objections:-
In compliance with the order in CC 25/2022, the opposite party handed over the possession of the flat to the complainant on 28.11.2024. Therefore, this opposite party states that the calculation memo filed by the complainant is erroneous and no such rental compensation is payable to the complainant. They have relied on the orders dated 29.11.2024 & 12.01.2024 and the relevant portion is extracted:-
“………….Both parties are present along with respective counsel and represented that the possession of the flat of the complainant is given to the complainant who also acknowledged the same….”
“(vii) Both sides are at liberty to set off the payments to be made to the other side from the payments to be respectively.”
6. We have perused the impugned order and perusal of pa
