STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA `

AT HYDERABAD

                                                            FA 669 OF 2014

                                                                        Against

                                    CC 320 OF 2013, DISTRICT FORUM III, HYDERABAD

Between :

M/s. R. K. Township Promoters (P ) Ltd

Represented by its Managing Director

Sri M.M. Kondaiah,

O/o 8-3-319/11, 3^rd floor, Doyen  Chamber,

Behind Sarathi Studio, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad                                                                          …             Appellant/opposite party

And

Sri V. Sai Krishna Vishnu,

S/o Sri V.V. Krishna Rao,

Aged about 33 years,

Occ : Private employee,

R/o H.No. 10-148/28, Sainagar

Balanagar, R.R. District                                                   …             Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellant                               :           M/s. Vamaraju Srikrishnudu

Counsel for the Respondent                           :           Sri V. Srinivas

Coram            :

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N. Rao Nalla             …        President

And

Sri Patil Vithal Rao                           ..          Member

Monday, the Nineteenth Day of June

Two Thousand Seventeen

Oral order :    ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )

                                                            *****

1. This is an appeal filed Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant/opposite party aggrieved by the orders dated 15.01.2014 made in CC 320 of

2013 passed by the District Forum III, Hyderabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the Forum below.
3. The case of the appellant/complainant, in brief, is that the opposite party issued wide publicity that they would develop a venture under the name and style of “R. K. Diamond City” at Bangalore High way, Kothur X road, HEL Nagar, Railway Station, Shamshabad. The complainant paid Rs.500/- towards admission fee.  The complainant intends to purchase a plot bearing No. 154 and paid Rs.4,50,000/- towards cost of the plot including development charges.  The Appellant/opposite party  ailed to produce HMDA final approval and approval from the DTCP. There are no developments on the site.  Despite many requests, the appellant/opposite party postponed the registration of the plot on one pretext or the other and demanded further amount.  He approached their Managing Director and the Managers of various branches located in A. P.  He approached the A.P.State Legal Services Authority, which, forwarded the same to the District Legal Services Authority, R.R. District for settlement. But the opposite party did not appear before the legal services authority.  Hence he got issued legal notice dated 21.04.2013 demanding refund of the amount but the opposite party  did not give any reply.  The acts of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.4,50,000/- with interest @ 18% pa from the respective dates of payment till the ate of realization, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.30,0