CCP No.25 of 2024, Dt.18.02.2025

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 18th day of FEBRUARY, 2025.
Present:- Sri Syed Lateef-ur Rahman,
Adjudicating Officer.
C.C.P.No.25/2024/TG RERA

Between:
1) Sri Marimuthu Krishnan S/o Muthuramalingam Marimuthu,
aged: 47 yrs, Occ: Teacher, R/o H.No.A51 Ananda Nivas,
Faculty Quarters, IIIT Hyderabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad 500032.
2) Smt.Moumita Saharay W/o Marimuthu Krishnan, aged: 47 yrs,
Occ: Teacher, R/o H.No.A51 Ananda Nivas, Faculty Quarters,
IIIT Hyderabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad 500 032.
…Complainants.
and
1) M/s.Fortune99homes Infra Pvt.Ltd., through its Managing Directors
Sri Madhirala Rosi Reddy, Sri Kota Vijay Babu & Sri Dhanunjaya Ganjikunta,
Regd.office: Cyber Heights, 1st and 2nd Floor, Road No.2, Banjara Hills,
Beside NTR Trust Lane, Hyderabad 500034.
2) Sri Madhirala Rosi Reddy S/o M.Poli Reddy, Regd.office: Cyber Heights,
1st and 2nd Floor, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Beside NTR Trust Lane,
Hyderabad 500034..
3) Sri Kota Vijaya Babu S/o Alfred, Regd.office: Cyber Heights, 1st and 2nd Floor,
Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Beside NTR Trust Lane, Hyderabad 500034.
4) Sri Dhanunjaya Ganjikunta, Regd.office: Cyber Heights, 1st and 2nd Floor,
Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Beside NTR Trust Lane, Hyderabad 500034.
…Respondents.
This complaint came up for hearing before me on 08.02.2025 for hearing in the
presence of Sri Drupad Sangwan, Advocate for the complainants and the respondents
remained ex parte; upon perusing the material papers available on record and after
hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, the following order is passed:
The present complaint has been filed u/s 31 of Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Rule 35 of the
Telangana State Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Rules’) for award of compensation.

---

CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT:
2(a). The case of the complainant, as averred in the complaint, is that Fortune99 Homes.,
ie., Respondent No.1 represented themselves as sole and absolute owner and peaceful
possessor of property land totalling Ac.7-22 Gts in Sy.Nos.654 and 655 situated at
Nandivanaparthi village and Gram Panchayat, Yachram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as
per Regd. Sale Deed document No.496/2021. The representatives of Respondent No.1
advertised their Project “Fortune Pharma City-1” as an investment opportunity. They
approached the complainants and other allottees persuading them that the Project would
be beneficial for their future. Following repeated calls and visits by the representatives of
Respondent No.1, the complainants agreed to purchase plots in the Project.

The

complainants then selected 6 plots and agreed to purchase the same @ Rs.5,300/- per
Sq.yard.
2(b). It is stated that on 11.08.2021 Respondent No.1 executed two Agreements of Sale in
favour of Complainant Nos.1 and 2. The first agreement pertains to the sale of open Plot
Nos.215 to 219 comprising 1000 Sq.yards in “Fortune99 Homes” venture in Sy.No.654 and
655 of Nandivanaparthi village and in land bearing Sy.No.144, 145, 153 and 154 of Nazik
Singaram village and Gram Panchayat, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for a sale
consideration of Rs.53,00,000/-. The second Agreement of Sale was executed for sale of
open Plot No.182 admeasuring 200 Sq.yards within the same venture for a consideration of
Rs.10,60,000/-. This resulted in a total sale consideration of Rs.63,60,000/- for the plots as
outlined in two Agreements of Sale.

---

2©.

It is further pleaded that in terms of said Agreements, the complainants made

payments of Rs.3,00,000/- through Cheque No.466251, dt.31.07.2021, Rs.3,00,000/through Cheque No466252, dt.31.07.2021, Rs.8,00000/- through Cheque No.466253
dt.03.08.2021, Rs.2,30,000/- through cheque No.466254 dt.11.08.2021, Rs.15,50,000/through Cheque No.466255 dt.11.08.2021 and receipts acknowledging said payments have
been issued by Respondent No.1 Company. The said total payment of Rs.31,80,000/represents 50% of the total sale consideration as specified in two Agreements of Sale. It is
then pleaded that despite the said substantial payments, the respondents failed to fulfil
their contractual obligations by not registering the plots within the promised timeline.
2(d). In the meanwhile, the respondents altered the Project Layout from the original
version proposed to the allottees. The Revised Layout raised several concerns among the
allottees and the respondents compelled the complainants to purchase additional land
increasing total area from 1200 Sq. yards to 1372.20 Sq. yards beyond what was originally
proposed. It is stated that under the guise of finalizing registration, the respondents
coerced the complainants to make additional payment of Rs.25,00,000/-, which was paid
through three Cheques, viz., Rs.10,00,000/- through Cheque No.576782, dt.11.07.2022,
Rs.10,00,000/- through Cheque No.576783 dt.14.07.2022 and Rs.5,00,000/- through
Cheque No.576784 dt.14.07.2022. Despite receiving said payments, the respondents failed
to proceed with the registration process as promised.
2(e), According to the complainants, when they sought clarification and attempted to
assert their rights, they were subjected to mental and physical harassment by the Agents of
Respondent No.1 causing immense distress and fear. The complainants also observed that

---

there was no little progress on the ground concerning the development of “Fortune Pharma
City-1” Project.

The lack of infrastructure such as roads, sewage systems and other

essential amenities raised concerns about the ability of the Respondents to complete the
Project as per initial time lines discussed.
2(f).

The complainants further plead that the respondents had initially provided

brouchers and promotional material that showcased the “Fortune Pharma City-1” Project
as a well planned and lucrative investment. However, the complainants later discovered
that the actual Project did not match as per the representations made including
discrepancies in the Layout, Plot size and overall Project quality. Later, the complainants
learnt that the Project lacked certain statutory approvals required for legitimate sale and
registration of plots. This was not disclosed by the respondents at the time of entering into
Agreements of sale. On multiple occasions, the respondents assured registration of plots
next week or soon. Such assurances were given verbally and via WhatApp messages, yet
they were never fulfilled.
2(g). It is further pleaded that in addition to immense mental and physical harassment
caused to the complainants, the respondents and their Agents employed pressure tactics
including veiled threats to coerce the complainants to accept altered terms of sale and
make further payments. Such tactics created a hostile and intimidating environment for
the complainants. As time passed, the respondents have become increasingly unresponsive
to the inquiries and communications from the side of complainants. Phone calls, e-mails
and even visits to the offices of respondents often went un-answered or were met with
evasive responses, leaving the complainants without any clear recourse or information

---

about the status of their investment. All such situations made the complainants to firmly
feel that the respondents acted with malicious intent and the investigation revealed that
this was not an isolated incident and that cases vide Consumer Case No.184/2023 and
Consumer Case No.666 of 2022 were filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission-1, Hyderabad and the Commission found that the respondents failed to
perform their duties leading to a deficiency in service.
2(h). At last, the complainants plead that they faced not only financial strain. but also
social embarrassment due to the inability to repay borrowed funds, which effected
relationships with family members and professional standing. The continuous harassment,
uncertainty and financial strain took a significant emotional and psychological toll on the
complainants. The stress has manifested in health issues, anxiety and a deteriorating
quality of life further compounding the damages suffered due to the actions of the
respondents. The complainants made several attempts to resolve the issues amicably
including requesting mediation through multiple notices and personal meetings with the
respondents.

However, such efforts were either ignored or met with uncooperative

behaviour forcing the complainants to seek formal legal course.

The actions of the

respondents have caused significant financial strain on the complainants, who have paid a
total sum of Rs.56,80,000/- without receiving the plots or necessary registration
documents. Furthermore, the complainants have suffered severe mental anguish, physical
harm and reputational damage due to the continuous harassment, assault and inability to
repay the borrowed money from the relatives.

---

2(i).

It is further pleaded that complainant No.1 previously filed a complaint before this

Authority.

However, complainant No.1 subsequently withdrew the complaint seeking

liberty to file a fresh complain with better particulars as per orders of this Authority.
2(j).

Therefore, the complainants pray to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards

financial losses incurred due to breach of contract; Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental anguish,
physical harassment and reputational damage suffered by the complainant, as a direct
result of the actions of the respondents, and Rs.50,000/- towards legal expenses.
3.

After filing of case, notices were issued as evident from the docket on the addresses

mentioned in complaint. The notices returned un-served with postal endorsement as
“addressee left”. Later, the complainants furnished present addresses of the respondents.
Notices were again sent by RPAD to respondent Nos.1 to 4 for appearance and counter on
25.01.2025. The notices so sent returned with postal endorsement as “refused”. Refusal of
notices amount to sufficient service. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 called absent on 25.01.2025
and there is no representation. Hence, respondent Nos.1 to 4 have been set ex parte.
4.

The complainant No.1 filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence. The complainants also

got marked Exs.A1 to A11 in support of their case.
5.

Heard learned Counsel for the complainants.

6.

Now the Point for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled for

compensation? And if so, to what amount?
7.

POINT:

---

From the affidavit of the complainant No.1 and Exs.A1 to A11, the case as pleaded by
the complainants in complaint about purchase of plots, entering into Agreements of Sale,
payment of amounts and then failure of respondents to act as per Agreements of Sale and
harassment and mental agony caused to the complainants get support from documentary
evidence Exs.A1 to A9. The respondents have also refused to receive notices issued in the
case and thus they did not prefer to attend the proceedings of the case and challenge the
contentions raised by the complainants. The case of the complainants is unchallenged. In
these circumstances, it has to be held that respondents, having entered into Agreements of
Sale Exs.A1 and A2, and having received amounts as pleaded in complaint and supported
by Exs.A3, A4 and A6 have failed to act upon on the terms and conditions of Agreements of
Sale Exs.A1 and A2.

Therefore, it is held that the complainants are entitled for

compensation from the respondents.
8.

Now the next question is as to for how much compensation the complainants are

entitled.

The complainants have claimed compensation under three (3) heads, viz.,

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two Lakhs only) in lieu of financial losses incurred due to breach of
contract, Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two Lakhs only) towards mental agony, physical harassment
and reputational damage suffered by the complainants as a direct result of actions of the
respondents; and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards legal expenses
incurred for filing complaint.
9.

The complainants have elaborately pleaded in complaint as to how they were made

to proceed with purchase of plots, make payments and later made to suffer irrespective of
their every attempt to see that the Agreements of sale are acted upon. They have also

---

pleaded in many ways as to how they were harassed mentally and physically by the
respondents. A perusal of contents in complaint clearly goes to show that the acts of the
respondents are very serious, as they could collect huge amounts from the complainants
for sale of plots and later they did not respond compelling the complainants to file present
case. It is common knowledge as to how a person to own a plot for house would invest his
life earnings. It is the case of the complainants that they had to borrow amounts from
others as pleaded in complaint. Having done so and having not got the plots agreed to be
sold under Exs.A1 and A2 registered under sale deeds, how much mental agony and
harassment the complainants might have suffered, which as a matter of fact cannot be
weighed in money value. In these facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that the
claim of the complainants is unchallenged and the circumstances mentioned in complaint
as to how the respondents made the complainants to suffer financially, mentally and
physically, I am of the considered view that the claim of the compensation made by the
complainants under said first and second heads is just and reasonable, however, towards
legal expenses, the grant of compensation at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand
only) would be just and appropriate. Accordingly, it is held that the complainants are
entitled for compensation from the respondents, as under:
Sl.No.
1
2
3

Heads
Towards financial losses incurred due to
breach of contract as pleaded in
complaint.
Towards
mental
agony,
physical
harassment and reputational damage
suffered by the complainants.
Towards legal expenses.

Amount (in Rupees)
Rs.2,00,000-00

Total

Rs.4,25,00,000-00

Rs.2,00,000-00
Rs.25,000-00

---

(Rupees Four Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only). The Point is answered
accordingly in favour of the complainants and against the respondents.
10.

IN THE RESULT, the respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,25,000/-

(Rupees Four Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) towards compensation, within
sixty (60) days from the date of this order, failing which, they shall also be liable to pay
interest @ 10% per annum (today’s highest MCLR rate of 8% plus 2%) 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
18th day of FEBRUARY, 2025.
Sd/ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA; HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
NONE
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANTS
Ex.A1

Dt.11.08.2021

Copy of Agreement of Sale.

Ex.A2

Dt,11.08.2021

Copy of Agreement of Sale.

Ex.A3

…

Ex.A4

…

Copies of three (3) Cheques, (i) bearing No.466251
dt,31.07.2021 for Rs.3,00,000/-; (2) bearing No.466252,
dt.31.07.2021 for Rs.3,00,000/- and (3) Cheque bearing
No466253 dt.03.08.2021 for Rs.8,00,000/- issued by the
Complainant No.1 to Respondent No.1 Company.
Copies of six (6) receipts issued by the Respondent No.1
Company in favur of Complainant No.1/Sri Marimuthu
Krishnan.

---

Ex.A5

…

Ex.A6

11.07.2022

Ex.A7

…

Ex.A8

…

Ex.A9

Dt.21.02.2023

Ex.A10

Dt.04.08.2023

Ex.A11

Dt.25.10.2023

Two (2) copies of Layout shown by the Respondent No.1
Company pertaining to Fortune Pharma City 1.
Copy of Three (3) Cheques (1) bearing No.576782
dt.11.07.2022 for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.Ten Lakhs only); (2)
bearing No.576783, dt.14.07.2022 for Rs.10,00,000/(Rs.Ten Lakhs only) and (3) bearing No.576784
dto.14.07.2022 for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.Five Lakhs only)
issued by Smt.Moumita Saharay/Complainant in favour of
Respondent No.1.
Broucher released by the Respondent No.1 Company
showing the amenities and inviting the bookings.
Screenshot copy of WhatsApp message.
Letter issued by Respondent No.1 Company to
Complainant No.1.
Copy of order passed in CC No.184 of 2023 by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad.
Copy of order passed in CC No.666 of 2022 by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad.
Sd/ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA; HYDERABAD.

Cc

---