CCP No.07of 2024 Ex parte

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this, the 6th day of JANUARY 2025.
Present:- Sri Syed Lateef-ur Rahman,
Adjudicating Officer.
C.C.P.No.7/2024/TG RERA
Between:
Smt.Kadiri Sreelatha W/o Sri Kadiri Venkata Santosh Kumar,
aged about 36 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o Plot No.71, 72, Dwaraka
Nagar, Managanoor village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District – 501 511.
…Complainant.
AND
1) M/s.G.K.Construction, represented by its Managing Partners
Sri Gongura Srinivasa Rao S/o G.Kotaiah, aged: 46 yrs, Occ: Business.
2) Sri Gongura Sandeep S/o G.Srinivasa Rao, aged: about 22 yrs,
Occ: Business.
Both are R/o H.No.8-7-12/671, Sai Colony, Madhuban Colony,
Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District - 500 077.
…Respondents.

This complaint came up for hearing before me on 18.12.2024 in the
presence of Sri K.Udaya Kumar, Counsel for the Complainant and the Respondents
remained ex parte, upon hearing the argument of Counsel for the complainant and
having stood over for consideration till this day, the following order is passed:
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed u/s 31 of Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) read with Rule 35 of
Telangana State Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter
referred as ‘the Rules’).
Case of the Complainant:
2(a).

The factual matrix as gathered from the complaint reveals that the

Respondents represented the complainant that they are lawful owners and
possessors of open land bearing Plot No.24 admeasuring 250 Sq.yards. and Plot
No.25 admeasuring 167 Sq.Yards total admeasuring 417 Sq.yards equivalent to

---

According to the complainant, the Respondents got their Project as ‘Tirumala

Residency’ registered with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority vide Registration
No.P02400003636,

dt.20.11.2021.

Consequently,

the

Respondents

started

construction of said Project as Flat Nos.101, 102, 201, 202, 301, 302, 401,402, 501
and 502.
2(c).

It is further pleaded that the Respondents offered to sell Flat No.302 on 3rd

Floor with a plinth area of 1217 Sq.feet together with undivided share of 41.7 Sq.
yards or 34.86 Sq. Mtrs of land to the complainant for a total consideration of
Rs.39,00,000/- (Rs.Thirty Nine Lakhs only) and undertook to deliver possession
within 16 months from the commencement of construction. The complainant paid
an advance of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) on 26.05.2021 by way of
cash as part payment and Respondents have entered into an agreement of sale
acknowledging receipt of said amount.

---

It is said that the Respondents offered a discount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One

lakh only) in the month of July, 2021 on immediate payment of substantial sum in
cash citing an urgent need of funds to initiate construction.

The complainant

trusted the statement of the Respondents and remitted a further sum of
Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) on 13.07.2021 and 14.07.2021 by
obtaining

loans

from

Banks

and

Financial

Institutions.

Thereafter,

the

complainant paid balance amount and the Respondents have executed a Registered
Sale Deed bearing Document No.1295/2022, dt.31.01.2022 and the Respondents
agreed to deliver possession within 16 months from the date of commencement of
construction/Bhoomi Pooja, which took place on 03.07.2021 and thus the
construction was expected to be completed by November, 2022.
2(e)

The complainant further pleads that the Flat was purchased for her elderly

parent-in-laws by name Sri K.Chinna Rangaiah aged 81 years and Smt.K.Bala
Rangamma aged 71 years, who had significant health issues. The parents-in-laws
of the complainant anticipating completion of construction by November, 2022
have left their home town of Komarole Mandal in Prakasham District and took a
rented house on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty Thousand only). During
the period in issue, there is force to move from one rented house to another for
various reasons and as a result of which, they suffered health-wise and were
hospitalized and put to additional financial burden of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two lakhs
only) and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakh only) towards shifting
charges.
2(f).

It is stated that due to delay in giving possession of Flat, the complainant

had to pay interest on the loans obtained. The complainant has suffered both
financially and mentally. Later, the complainant and other buyers and the
Respondents entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, whereunder the

---

However, the construction could not be completed as

agreed. As per said Memorandum of Understanding, the Respondents agreed to
pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand only) per month from the date
of Registration of Flat, in case of failure of Respondents to complete the
construction. It is said that the agreed compensation does not adequately cover
the financial losses suffered by the complainant. The complainant had incurred
additional financial losses due to delay, increased rent payments, EMI payments
and other expenses. Thus, the Respondents have not only failed to fulfil the
contractual obligations, but subjected the complainant to mental harassment and
monetary loss.
2(g).

Therefore,

the

complainant

prays

to

award

a

compensation

of

Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) due to delay in giving possession of
the Flat beside an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) towards
compensation for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty Thousand only)
towards legal expenses.
3.

After registration of the complaint, notices were issued to the Respondents

through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due.

Respondent No.2 appeared

representing himself and his father – Respondent No.1. When the complaint was
adjourned for counter, the complainant filed a petition under Or.VI Rule 17 r/w
Sec.151 CPC for amendment, which was Registered as I.A.No.13/2024
4.

When

I.A.No.13/2024

was

called

on

10.09.2024

and

21.09.2024,

Respondent No.2 representing himself and his father Respondent No.1 was present,
but no counter was filed by them.

However, Respondent No.2 represented that

they are making attempts to settle the matter and sought time.

When the

complaint and I.A. were taken on 28.09.2024, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained

---

Then

complaint and I.A. again adjourned to 05.10.2024 for counter in IA as a last
chance. On 05.10.2024, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained absent and as such,
their right to file counter in I.A.No.13/2024 was forfeited and after hearing learned
Counsel appearing for the complainant, I.A.No.13/2024 was allowed.
5.

Later, the complainant has carried out the amendment and has also filed

fair copy of complaint on 17.10.2024.

Since the complaint and I.A., were being

called simultaneously and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had participated in the
Proceedings as noted supra and had also notice of petition filed by the Complainant
for amendment, the question was whether notices should again be sent to the
Respondents after allowing of amendment petition. Having regard to said facts and
circumstances with regard to participation of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the
proceedings of complaint and amendment petition, it was observed that when
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have participated in the proceedings of complaint and
amendment petition, they are bound to appear and contest the case and as such
there is no need to send notices again. However, the complaint, after filing of fair
copy of complaint, was adjourned from 17.10.2024 to 26.10.2024 to enable
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file counter.
6.

On 26.10.2024, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained absent and no counter

was filed on their behalf. In view of this and in view of absence of Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 on various dates both in complaint and amendment petition,
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been set ex parte in complaint and case was posted
for ex parte evidence on behalf of complainant.
7.

The complainant filed an affidavit in lieu of her evidence. The complainant

also got marked Exs.A1 to A16 to support her claim.

---

Now the POINT for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for

compensation? And if so, for what amount?
9.

POINT:
The complainant has claimed compensation for delay in giving possession of

Flat, mental agony and legal expenses. As noted supra, the Respondents remained
ex parte and did not choose to contest the claim made by the complainant. Thus,
the claims made by the complainant are unchallenged.

The complainant, while

making claim of compensation for delay in giving possession of flat, has claimed
certain amounts under the heads, viz., increased rent payment, interest payment,
miscellaneous expenses and compensation for delay. In view of such claims made
by the complainant, the question that arises for consideration is whether the
complainant is entitled for compensation under the heads mentioned above.

In

“M/s. Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt.Ltd. vs State of UP &
others etc” vide Civil Appeal No(s).6745 to 6749 of 2021 vide order
dated: 11-11-2021, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 86 held as under:
“From the scheme of the Act of which a detailed reference has been
made and taking note of power of adjudication delineated with the
regulatory authority and adjudicating officer, what finally culls out is
that although the Act indicates the distinct expressions like ‘refund’,
‘interest’, and ‘compensation’, a conjoint reading of Sections 18 and 19
clearly manifests that when it comes to refund of the amount, and
interest on the refund amount, or directing payment of interest for
delayed delivery of possession, or penalty and interest thereon, it is
the regulatory authority which has the power to examine and
determine the outcome of a complaint. At the same time, when it
comes to a question of seeking the relief of adjudging compensation
and interest thereon under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19, the
adjudicating officer exclusively has the power to determine, keeping in
view the collective reading of Section 71 read with Section 72 of the
Act. If the adjudication under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 other than
compensation as envisaged, if extended to the adjudicating officer as
prayed that, in our view, may intend to expand the ambit and scope of
the powers and functions of the adjudicating officer under Section 71
and that would be against the mandate of the Act, 2016.”

---

Admittedly, the complainant has also filed a complaint vide Complaint

No.67/2023 in Form ‘M’ before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for possession
of the Flat and Respondents appeared therein and promised to complete the
pending work within one month and sought time for filing a detailed reply.
However, the complainant and the Respondents failed to appear before the
Authority in said complaint on subsequent dates and ultimately, the said
complaint was dismissed for non prosecution. This is supported by copy of order of
the Authority Ex.A8 filed by the complainant.
11.

As far as the claim of interest of Rs.5,49,000/- (Rs.Five Lakhs and Forty

Nine Thousand only) made by the complainant towards compensation is concerned,
it has to be said that the complainant is not entitled for such claim in view of said
decision in M/s. Newtech Promoters & Developers Pvt.Ltd. case.
12(a). The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty
Thousand only) per month as rent paid by them for the premises obtained for stay
of old aged parent-in-laws of the complainant due to delay in giving possession of
Flat, i.e., total Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) for the
period from 01.12.2022 to 30.06.2024, another amount of Rs.1,11,000/- (Rs.One
Lakh and Eleven Thousand only) towards miscellaneous expenses and an amount
of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only) per month towards compensation for delay
for the period from 01.02.2022 to 30.06.2024, totally amounting to Rs.2,80,000/(Rs.Two Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only).
12(b). The complainant pleaded that the Respondents agreed to deliver possesion
of Flat within (16) months from the date of commencement of construction, i.e., on
3rd July, 2021 and thus possession was to be delivered by November, 2022. The
complainant also pleaded that the Flat was purchased for stay of her old aged
parents-in-law and expecting completion of construction of Flat by November,

---

According to complainant, the agreed compensation

does not adequately cover the financial losses suffered by them, as she incurred
additional financial losses and miscellaneous expenses.
12(c). The complainant in her affidavit filed in lieu of her evidence has stated that
the Respondents could not complete construction to some extent leaving certain
works unattended till now and possession of Flat with incomplete construction has
been given only in the month of November, 2024 and the Municipal Department
has issued Electricity bill of the Flat on her name. She further mentioned that she
is, as such, entitled for compensation towards rent @ Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty
Thousand only) per month from the due date of delivery of possession, i.e.,
December, 2022 to the date of giving possession, i.e., November, 2024, i.e., (24)
months, which comes to RS.4,80,000/- (Rs.Four Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only)
and she prays to grant the same.
12(d). Ex.A6 is said to be Memorandum of Understanding executed between the
Respondents, complainant and other buyers. In Memorandum of Understanding
Ex.A6, it is mentioned that the construction would be completed within two
months and in default, the Respondents agreed to pay compensation of
Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only) per month to each Flat owner from the date of
registration of their respective Flat.

---

complainant

and said contentions, it has to be concluded that the Respondents were under
obligation to deliver possession of the Flat

by November, 2022.

However, they

delivered possession of the Flat, as stated by the complainant in her affidavit filed
in lieu of her evidence, in Para 15, in the month of November, 2024. The
complainant claimed compensation for 24 months from 01.12.2022 to 30.11.2024
@ Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty Thousand only) per month totally amounting to
Rs.4,80,000/- (Rs.Four lakhs and Forty Thousand only) towards increased rent
payment. No doubt, the Respondents under Memorandum of Understanding Ex.A6
agreed to pay compensation in case of delay @ Rs.,10,000/- per month.

Now the

question is whether the complainant has to restrict her claim only to Rs.10,000/per month as per Ex.A6 Memorandum of Understanding or she is entitled to
compensation towards rent at said rate. The complainant has pleaded in various
ways as to how they suffered financially and mentally.

If the contention of the

complainant is untenable, if was for the Respondents to participate in the
proceedings of present complaint and contest the claim of the complaint, which
they did not do so.

Having regard to these facts and circumstances and the

prevailing rates of rent in Hyderabad City, I am of the considered view that the
complainant is entitled for grant of compensation towards rent not at the rate of

---

Accordingly, the complainant is granted an

amount of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.Two Lakhs and Forty Thousand only) incurred by her
as compensation towards rent.
13.

The complainant has next claimed an amount of Rs.1,11,000/- towards

miscellaneous expenses.
incurred by her.

She did not explain such miscellaneous expenses

However, one has to incur some expenditure towards

transportation for shifting to rented portions and as such, it is just and appropriate
to award an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand only) as compensation
towards transportation charges, inasmuch as the complainant has pleaded that
they had to shift from one rented portion to another during the period of delay in
giving possession.
14.

It is to be noted that the complainant has claimed beside rent, a

compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- towards compensation for delay and another
amount of Rs.5,49,000/- towards interest payment.

As noted supra, the

complainant cannot claim interest in the present complaint as laid down by
Hon’ble Supreme Court and similarly the complainant would not be entitled for
said amount of Rs.2,80,000/- towards compensation for delay when compensation
towards rent awarded as above. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for said two
amounts as compensation as claimed.
15.

It is pertinent to mention that the complainant could not get possession of

Flat in time and had to wait for nearly 24 months. The complainant has obtained
loans etc as pleaded for purchase of Flat with an intention to reside peacefully and
happily.

One has to consider the psyche of the Indian society. Normally Indians

are emotionally attached to own a residential house for the family. They will be

---

Beside above, the complainant is also entitled for compensation towards

legal assistance to pursue the litigation. Having regard to such attempts in getting
legal assistance by engaging an Advocate etc., this Authority is of the considered
view that award of an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only)
towards cost of legal assistance would meet the ends of justice.
17.

For the reasons recorded supra, the conclusion that emerges on the POINT

is that the complainant is entitled for compensation from the Respondents as
under:

---

Head(s)

Amount (in Rupees)

1

Compensation towards amount incurred for
rent paid during the period of delay in giving
possession.
Compensation
towards
Transportation
charges.
Compensation towards harassment and
mental agony.
Compensation towards legal expenses.

Rs.2,40,000-00

TOTAL

Rs.5,45,000-00

2
3
4

Rs. 30,000-00
Rs.2,50,000-00
Rs.

25,000-00

(Rupees Five Lakhs and Forty Five Thousand only)

18.

In the result, the Respondents are directed to pay an amount of

Rs.5,45,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Forty Five Thousand only) to the
complainant towards compensation within (60) days from the date of this Order,
failing which they shall be liable to pay interest at the highest MCLR rate of 8%
plus 2% i.e., 10% per annum from the date of complaint till realization, as per Rule
15 of the Rules. The complaint is partly allowed accordingly.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the
6th day of JANUARY, 2025.

Sd/ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR COMPLAINANT:
PW-1: Smt.Kadiri Sreelatha.

FOR RESPONDENTS
Ex parte

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT
Ex.A-1:

Dt.26.05.2021:

Photocopy of Agreement of Sale.

Ex.A-2:

Dt.31.01.2022:

Photocopy of Sale Deed document
No.1295/2022.

Ex.A-3:
Ex.A-4:

NIL
Dt.06.11.2024:

Bank Transaction Receipt.
Copy of latest Original EC.

---

Ex.A-5:

Dt.01.10.2021:

Ex.A-6:

Dt.08.09.2023:

Copy of Building Permission copy issued by
Municipality.
Copy of Memorandum of Understanding.

Ex.A-7:

Dt.20.11.2021:

Copy of RERA Registration Certificate.

Ex.A-8:

Dt.29.08.2024:

Copy of order of RERA in Complaint
No.67/2023.

Ex.A-9:

Dt.02.11.2024:

Gold loan Bank Statement-Telangana
Grameena Bank, Loan A/c.No.79066575206.

Ex.A-10:

Dt.02.11.2024:

Gold loan Bank Statement-Telangana
Grameena Bank, Loan A/c.No.79068429582.

Ex.A-11:

Dt.02.11.2024:

Gold loan Bank Statement-Telangana
Grameena Bank, Loan A/c.No.79068429366.

Ex.A-12:

Dt.02.11.2024:

Gold loan Bank Statement-Telangana
Grameena Bank, Loan A/c.No.79068429707.

Ex.A-13:

Dt.09.11.2024:

Electricity Bill for the month of November,
2024.

Ex.A-14:

Dt.02.12.2024:

Electricity Bill for the month of December,
2024.

Ex.A-15:

Dt.19.06.2021:

GK Construction Link Sale Deed vide
Doc.No.6576/2021.

Ex.A-16:

Dt.25.06.2021:

Development Agreement-cum-GPA vide
Doc.No.6997/2021.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS
NIL
Sd/ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.
Cc.

---