CCP No.27 of 2024 dt.07.03.2025 Cc

Page 1 of 20

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this, the 7th day of MARCH, 2025.
Present:- Sri Syed Lateef-ur Rahman,
Adjudicating Officer.
C.C.P.No.27/2024/TG RERA
Between:
Sri Vinesh Kumar Thati, H.No.4-2-90/5, Old Bhoiguda,
Secunderabad 500003.
…(Complainant).
AND
1) Sri Goli Shravan Kumar, G.E.Papers & Boards Shop No.3-2-74,
General Bazar, Secunderabad - 500 003.
2) Bridge Constructions Pvt.Ltd., 8-2-293/K/52, 1st Floor, Ayyappa
Complex, Plot No.52, Phase-3, Kamalapuri Colony, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad 500073.
….(Respondents)
This complaint came up for hearing before me on 17.02.2025 in the
presence of the Complainant himself and of Sri M.Srinivas, Counsel for the
Respondent No.2,; whereas Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; upon
perusing the material on record and on hearing argument of both sides and
having stood over for consideration till this day, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
The complainant filed present complaint under Section 31 of Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)
read with Rule 35 of TS Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) against the respondents
to award compensation.

---

Case of the Complainant:
2(a). The case of the complainant, in brief, as revealed from the complaint
is that M/s.Bridge Constructions Pvt.Ltd (formerly known as M/s.SVC
Ventures Pvt.Ltd.) offered possession of apartment within (18) months. The
complainant used to reside in a rented house and as such he decided to own
an apartment.

Accordingly, he booked one Flat bearing No.1005 in SVC

Paramount now Bridge Paramount and paid more than 20% of the total
consideration, i.e., Rs.16,67,600/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs, Sixty Seven and
Six Hundred only) in the month of March, 2020.
2(b). According to the complainant, the Flat booked by him fell to the share
of owner, but he was not informed. It is stated that when the complainant
came to know about the said fact, the owner has decided to sell the Flat.
2(c). The complainant further pleads that the promoter postponed the
execution of Agreement of Sale and at last the Agreement of Sale was
executed on 19.11.2020 agreeing to hand over possession of the Flat within
(30) months (Twenty four months + six months grace period) from the date
of Agreement of Sale.
2(d). The complainant further pleads that the Agreement of Sale was
executed after Lockdown Pandemic.

However, the complainant was not

given any extension for payment of instalments. On the other hand, he was
harassed and threatened to cancel booking if instalments are not paid as
per payment plan, but possession is not given as promised. It is alleged that
the payment of total sale consideration was taken and after several

---

reminders, Sale Deed was executed on 01.09.2021 assuring to give
possession by March, 2022, but the possession is not handed over as per
Agreement of Sale violating provisions of Sections 12, 14 and 18 of the Act.
2(e). It is further pleaded that an amount of Rs.74, 71,875/- (Rupees
Seventy Four Lakhs, Seventy One Thousand, Eighty Hundred and Seventy
Five only) has been paid @ Rs.4,200/- (Rs.Four Thousand and Two Hundred
only) per Sq.Feet for schedule area along with covered one car parking
measuring 134.59 Sq.Feet in the Project @ Rs.750/- (Rs.Seven Hundred
only) per Sq.feet to respondent No.1/vendor/owner. Similarly, an amount of
Rs.8,97,674/- (Rs.4,99,125/- for amenities + 5% GST Rs.24,955/-) has
been paid to respondent No.2/promoter. Thus, the complainant has paid
total consideration of Rs.83,69,549/- (Rupees Eighty Three Lakhs, Sixty
Nine Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty Nine only).
2(f).

It is then pleaded that the possession of the Flat was to be given by

March, 2022 as advertised on Social Media. As per Agreement of Sale, the
possession of the Flat was to be handed over within (30) months including
grace period of six months, i.e., 19.05.2023, failing which interest has to be
paid within (90) days of its becoming due. But, no such interest has been
paid.
2(g). The complainant further pleads that cantilevered Balcony and utility
Balcony measurements are not as per Carpet area statement.
2(h). Therefore, the complainant prays to award interest for every month
delay till handing over possession and compensation.

---

Notices to the respondents:
3.

Notices have been issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Respondent

No.2 filed counter and contested the case. Notice issued to Respondent No.1
and handed over to the complainant for service was returned with a memo
and affidavit of the complainant duly attested by Advocate and Notary
stating inter alia that the complainant went at the address of respondent
No.1 and offered notice and respondent No.1 refused to

receive notice.

Having perused affidavit, it was concluded that prima facie Respondent No.1
has refused to receive notice, which amounts to sufficient service. As such,
respondent No.1 is called and he remained absent and there is no
representation on his behalf. Therefore, respondent No.1 has been set ex
parte.
Counter of Respondent No.2:
4(a). Respondent No.2 in counter contends that all allegations made
against them may be treated as denied unless specifically admitted.
According to respondent No.2, the subject Flat No.1005 fell to the share of
respondent No.1. The Agreement of Sale and other documents have been
executed between the complainant and Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2
is neither signatory to the documents nor has any knowledge about the
averments of those documents, specifically with respect to the period of
completion of construction and sale consideration.
4(b). It is contended that the complainant has paid total sale consideration
to respondent No.1, who is seller of the Flat. The complainant is bound to

---

pay only amenity charges, i.e., Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.Six Lakhs only) along with
applicable taxes of Rs.3,45,000/- (Rs.Three Lakhs and Forty Five Thousand
only), totalling Rs.8,45,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs and Forty Five
Thousand only) to respondent No.2 as mentioned at Page No.6 of the
Agreement of Sale.
Respondent No.2.

The complainant failed to pay full amount to

The complainant has paid only Rs.5,24,080/- (Rs.Five

Lakhs, Twenty Four Thousand and Eighty only) and still an amount of
Rs.3,20,920/- (Rupees Three Lakhs, Twenty Thousand, Nine Hundred and
Twenty only) is due.
4(c). Respondent No.2 further contends that Flat No.1005 was totally
completed, like all other Flats with all kinds of amenities. Respondent No.2
has completed the construction of entire residential apartment in all aspects
including construction area, material, quality and there were no deviations
with respect to promised construction area.
4(d). Respondent No.2 denies the allegation that the construction was not
completed within specified period. In fact, the delay was due to Covid
Pandemic period which was considered by RERA Authorities through order
dt.01.06.2021. Further, the entire construction is completed and more than
35 purchasers have occupied their Flats and are living happily. It is stated
that respondent No.2 has already intimated to the complainant through mail
dt.29.07.2023 to take possession of the Flat land as such, there is no delay
from Respondent No.2. The complainant instead of taking possession, with a
malafied intention, is making false and baseless allegations to squeeze
money from Respondent No.2.

---

Therefore, respondent No.2 prays to direct the complainant to pay
balance amount of Rs.3,20,920/- (Rupees Three Lakhs, Twenty Thousand,
Nine Hundred and Twenty only) with interest @ 24% per annum.
Rejoinder by the complainant:
5(a). The complainant, with leave of the Authority, filed a rejoinder stating
that he has paid Rs.8,97,674/- (Rs.Eight Lakhs, Ninety Seven Thousand,
Six Hundred and Seventy Four only) towards amenities and GST to
respondent No.2 and Rs.74,71,875/- (Rs.Seventy Four Lakhs, Seventy One
Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy Five only) to respondent No.1 and
there are no dues to respondent No.2.

Only after payment of total sale

consideration, Sale Deed was executed on 01.09.2021. It is stated that the
payment receipts and Bank statements show payment to respondent No.2.
Further, the said payments have also been mentioned at page 12 of
Agreement of Sale.
5(b). It is stated that the complainant has sent several mails to respondent
No.2 to complete the Flat as per specifications and deliver possession with
interest for delayed possession.
5(c). Respondent No.2 has sent mail dt.29.07.2023 to take possession of the
Flat. On the same date, the complainant has given reply to respondent No.2
and there was no response. It is stated that as per directions of Hon’ble
Supreme Court it is illegal to take possession without receiving Occupancy
Certificate from concerned authorities.

---

5(d). The complainant further pleads that the respondents did not hand
over possession of Flat as agreed and the complainant suffered huge
financial loss and mental agony. It is stated that from November, 2022, the
complainant is asking to pay compensation for delayed possession and there
was no response.

When mails sent to respondent No.2, respondent No.2

gave reply to take possession without completing pending works of the Flat
and without receiving Occupancy Certificate.
EVIDENCE:
6.

The complainant and respondent No.2 did not choose to adduce oral

evidence.

The complainant got marked Exs.A1 to A14 on his behalf in

support of his contentions, whereas respondent No.2 got marked Exs.B1 to
B5 to support their contentions. It is needless to mention that respondent
No.1 remained ex parte and did not choose to contest the claim in the case.
Points for consideration:
7.

On the basis of the pleadings advanced by the complainant and

Respondent No.2, the Points that arise for consideration are:
1.

Whether the complainant is entitled for interest for every month
delay till handing over possession of Flat

2.

Whether there is no privity of contract between the complainant
and Respondent No.2 as contended by respondent No.2?

3.

Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation? And if
so, for what amount and from which of the respondents?

POINT No.1:
8(a). As far as the claim of the complainant to grant interest for every
month delay in delivery of possession of Flat till handing over possession

---

towards compensation is concerned, it is relevant to refer the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court 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.”
8(b). From the said categorical pronouncement by Hon’ble Supreme Court,
I have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is not entitled to claim
interest for the period of delay in delivery of possession as compensation
before the Adjudicating Officer and it is only the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority which has jurisdiction to grant interest for the delay in delivery of
possession of Flat. The Point is answered accordingly.
POINT Nos.2 and 3:

---

9.

Point Nos.2 and 3 are interlinked and any discussion on any point will

have relevancy with other. As such, it is just and appropriate to decide both
the issues by a common discussion.
10(a). The admitted facts are that Mr.Dundoo Shirish, Mr.Goli Shyam
Sunder and Respondent No.1 are owners of land where the Project is
constructed. They along with Developer M/s.Bridge Constructions Pvt.Ltd.
(formerly known as M/s.SVC Ventures Pvt.Ltd) i.e., respondent No.2 have
entered into Development Agreement-cum-GPA vide Document No.1153 of
2018,

dt.25.10.2018

and

Rectification

Deed

bearing

document

No.2448/2018, dt.25.10.2018 in respect of land admeasuring 5094.75
Sq.yards bearing H.No.6-1-19 and 6-1-19/A in Sy.108/3 (old) situated at
Walker Town, Secunderabad.

Later, the Developer, i.e., Respondent No.2

and said Dundoo Shirish, Mr.Goli Shyam Sunder and respondent No.1 have
obtained permission from GHMC. Subsequently, the Developer-respondent
No.2 and said Dundoo Shirish, Mr.Goli Shyam Sunder and respondent No.1
have entered into Supplementary Agreement to the Development Agreement
vide Document No.163 of 2020, dt.28.01.2020 for allocation of developed
area in between them.

As per the Development Agreement and

Supplementary Agreement, Flat No.1005, which is subject matter in this
case, fell to the share of Respondent No.1, who is vendor of the complainant.
These facts are evident from Agreement of Sale Ex.A2 and Sale Deed Ex.A1
and Supplementary Agreement Ex.A11.
10(b). There is also no dispute that the complainant booked said Flat with
the Promoter-respondent No.2 in the month of March, 2020 and paid

---

Rs.16,67,600/- (Rs.Sixteen Lakhs, Sixty Seven Thousand and Six Hundred
only) to respondent No.2 as evident from Exs.A7, A8 and A9.

According to

the complainant, he was not informed at the time of booking of Flat that it
fell to the share of the owner, i.e., respondent No.1 and that the Developer,
i.e., respondent No.2 postponed execution of Agreement of Sale. It is also
not in dispute that subsequently the owner, i.e., respondent No.1 has
executed Agreement of Sale, Dt.19.11.2020 (Ex.A2) agreeing to sell

said

Flat No.1005 (10th Floor) admeasuring 1755 Sq.Feet with one Car parking
for sale consideration as mentioned in the agreement. It is also an admitted
fact that the possession of the Flat was agreed to be given within (30)
months (Twenty Four months + six months grace period) from the date of
agreement.

There is also no dispute that after payment of total

consideration, respondent No.1 has executed Sale Deed Dt.01.09.2021
(Ex.A1), but possession of the Flat is not yet delivered to the complainant. It
is also an admitted fact that the Developer, i.e., respondent No.2 has
returned Rs.12,52,520/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs, Fifty Two Thousand, Five
Hundred and Twenty only) to the complainant as evident from Ex.B3 from
out of the amount received from the complainant at the time of booking after
deducting the amount of amenities etc as mentioned in Agreement of Sale
Ex.A2.
11(a). It is the case of the complainant that the possession of the Flat was
agreed to be given in (30) months from the date of Agreement ExA2 by the
respondents, i.e., 19.05.2023, but they failed to hand over possession till
now.

It is also his case that he has filed complaint in Form “M” vide

---

Complaint No.46/2024 before the RERA Authority and the Authority passed
orders dt.21.01.2025 Ex.A14 directing respondent No.2 to complete all
pending works in respect of said Flat No.1005.
11(b). On the other hand, the Developer-respondent No.2 in Para-2 of the
counter has contended that the said Flat fell to the share of ownerrespondent No.1 and the Agreement of Sale and other documents were
executed between the complainant and respondent No.1. Respondent No.2
further contends that he was neither signatory to the documents nor has
any knowledge about the averments of these documents, specifically with
respect to the period of completion of construction and sale consideration
between them. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended
that when respondent No.2 is not a party to the Agreement of sale Ex.A2,
there is no privity of contract between the complainant and Respondent
No.2 and as such the complainant has no right to maintain complaint and
make claim against respondent No.2.
11(c). It

is

true

that

the

complainant

has

paid

said

amount

of

Rs.16,67,600/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs, Sixty Seven Thousand and Six
hundred only) as evident from Exs.A7 to A9 to respondent No.2 and
according to him, it is for booking of the Flat in question. Respondent No.2
has returned said amount of Rs.12,52,520/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs, Fifty
Two Thousand, Five hundred and Twenty only) as evident from Ex.B3 to the
complainant and according to respondent No.2, the said amount returned
was out of said amount of Rs.16,67,600/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs, Sixty
Seven Thousand and Six hundred only) after retaining amount towards

---

amenities as mentioned in Agreement of Sale Ex.A2. These payments and
refund of amount etc., is of no help either to the complainant or respondent
No.2 in regard to the claim by the complainant in the present case,
especially when the complainant has entered into Agreement of Sale Ex.A2
and got Sale Deed Ex.A1 executed from respondent No.1 in respect of Flat in
question. It is not the case of the complainant that respondent No.2 has
entered into any agreement or executed any document in his favour in
respect of the Flat purchased by him from respondent No.1. Therefore, it
has to be held that there is no privity of contract between the complainant
and the Developer-respondent No.2 in respect of Flat in question to make
any claim by the complainant against respondent No.2.
12(a). The complainant has pleaded in the complaint that the possession of
the Flat has not been handed over by 19.05.2023 as per Agreement of Sale
Ex.A2 and thus the respondents have violated the provisions of Sections 12,
14 and 18 of the Act.

He has further contended that as per decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court, possession cannot be given without obtaining
Occupancy Certificate. According to the complainant, he has suffered huge
financial loss and mental agony. On the other hand, respondent No.2 at one
stage in Para-4 of counter contended that the construction of Flat of the
complainant was totally completed in all aspect. At another stage in Para-5
of counter, he has contended that the delay was only due to Covid
Pandemic. Respondent No.2 has then in Para-6 contended that they have
intimated to the complainant already through mail dt.29.07.2023 Ex.B2 to
take possession of Flat and as such, there is no delay in giving possession.

---

12(b). On consideration of said contentions of both sides, it has to be noted
that the RERA Authority in Complaint No.46 of 2024 vide order
dt.21.01.2025 gave more than one direction to respondent No.2 to complete
all pending works in the Flat purchased by the complainant. If really, the
said contentions on behalf of respondent No.2 are correct, no order as above
would have been passed by the RERA Authority.

No weight to said mail

Ex.B2 said to have been given by respondent No.2 to the complainant can
be given in the light of mail dt.29.07.2023 Ex.A5 given by the complainant
to respondent No.2 as reply to said Ex.B2 mail that respondent No.2 has not
received Occupancy Certificate and that the remaining works as mentioned
therein may be completed coupled with said directions of RERA Authority
under order Ex.A14. In these circumstances, it is very difficult to attach any
importance to Occupancy Certificate dt.10.10.2023 Ex.B4 and to accept the
contention of respondent No.2 in Para-4 of counter that the construction of
Flat of the complainant was completed in all aspects.

Admittedly, the

possession as per Agreement of Sale Ex.A2 was to be given by 19.05.2023
and the said Agreement of Sale Ex.A2 was entered into on 19.11.2020.
Therefore, it has to be held that the complainant has proved that the
possession of Flat has not been given as per Agreement of Sale Ex.A2 as
pleaded by the complainant and as such, the respondents have violated the
provisions of Section 18 (l) of the Act and the complainant is entitled for
compensation only from respondent No.1 in view of finding recorded on
Point No.2 as above.

---

13(a). Now the next question is as to for what amount the complainant is
entitled as compensation.

As noted supra, the complainant has pleaded in

complaint that the possession of the Flat has not been given by 19.05.2023
as per Agreement of Sale Ex.A2 and thus the respondents violated the
provisions of Sections 12, 14 and 18 of the Act. He has further pleaded in
the rejoinder that he has suffered huge financial loss and mental agony. At
last, he prayed in the complaint only to award interest for compensation for
every month of delay till handing over possession and realization.
13(b). From the said pleading and relief claimed, it is clear that the relief as
claimed is not properly articulated.

It being so, a question arises as to

whether this Authority has power as per law to award compensation for
financial loss and mental agony as pleaded in pleading though not
specifically claimed in the case. On this aspect, it has to be noted that it is
settled law that where a remedy and relief are available under law, it can be
granted. It is also settled law that justice should not be denied on technical
aspects and that justice should prevail.

Further, if the prayer is not

properly articulated, relief cannot be denied. In the instant case, remedy is
available

for

the

complainant

to

file

present

complaint

and

seek

compensation, if entitled, and as such, I am of the considered view that the
compensation for financial loss and mental agony though not specifically
prayed, can be granted in the interest of justice, especially when a remedy
and relief are available and it can be granted.
14(a). Next, it has to be noted that compensation has to be granted under
the heads pecuniary and non-pecuniary.

Though compensation has not

---

been defined under the Act, Section 72 of the Act speaks about factors to be
taken into consideration while adjudicating the question of compensation,
which reads as under:
72. Factors to be taken into account by the Adjudicating Officer:

While adjudging the quantum of compensation or interest, as
the case may be, under section 71, the adjudicating officer
shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:(a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage,
wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default;
(b) the amount of loss caused as a result of the default;
(c) the repetitive nature of the default;
(d) such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers
necessary to the case in furtherance of justice.

14(b). For determining the compensation to be granted to the complainant
for loss or injury due to non-delivery of possession on time, there is
Authority of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “M/s. Fortune Infrastructure (now
known as M/s.Hicon Infrastructure) and another vs. Trevor D’Lima and
others, Civil Appeal No.(s) 3533-3534 of 2017 decided on 12.03.2018,
wherein it is held :
“No hard and fast rule can be laid down, however, a few
examples would be where an allotment is made, price is
received/paid, but possession is not given within the
period set out in the brochure. The Commission/Forum
would then need to determine the loss. Loss could be
determined on basis of loss of rent which could have
been earned if possession was given and the premises let
out or if the consumer had to stay in rented premises,
then on the basis of rent actually paid by him. Along
with recompensing the loss, the Commission/Forum may
also compensate for harassment/injury, both mental and
physical.”

---

In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the principle
for entitlement of the compensation due to loss or injury and its scope in
cases where the promoter of real estate failed to complete the project and
defaulted in handing over its possession.
14(c). In the instant case, it is neither the case of the complainant nor there
is

pleading

in

the

complaint

that

respondent

No.1

has

got

any

disproportionate gain or unfair advantage as a result of his default.
14(d). The complainant and respondent No.1 have entered into Agreement of
Sale Ex.A2 on 19.11.2020.

The complainant contends that once the

possession of the Flat was given as agreed, he would have occupied and
saved rent. According to him, he is living in a rented Flat by paying rent. To
support this, the complainant has filed a Rental Agreement dt.11.04.2018
Ex.A3 which shows that the complainant took Flat No.301 on rent of
Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty Thousand only) per month from the owner with
effect from 01.05.2018 with condition of 5% increase in rent every year,
Bank Statement of ICICI Bank Ex.A8 showing payment of rent of
Rs.21,830/- (Rs.Twenty One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Thirty only) on
01.03.2020, and another Bank Statement of ICICI Bank Ex.A10 showing
payment of Rs.22,922/- (Rs.Twenty Two Thousand, Nine Hundred and
Twenty Two only) on 02.09.2021. The complainant contends that the said
amount was paid under Exs.A8 and A10 due to increase in rent as per
Rental Agreement Ex.A3 and, therefore, he may be granted compensation
towards financial loss for staying in a rented Flat due to non delivery of
possession of Flat in time as agreed.

---

14(e). Admittedly, respondent No.1/owner has entered into Agreement of
Sale Ex.A2, dt.19.11.2020.

Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and did not

either contest the claim of the complainant nor chose to oppose the said
contentions

of

the

complainant

that

the

complainant

suffered

financial loss due to stay in rented Flat and payment of rent. Respondent
No.2 though contested the claim failed to rebut the said plea of the
complainant. Having regard to the said pleading and proof Exs.A2, A3, A8
and A10 and the fact that the Flat under Ex.A2 purchased for more than
Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs and status of the complainant, it has to be held
that the contention of the complainant that he had to stay in a rented Flat
by paying rent as evident from said Exs.A3, A8 and A10 has to be accepted.
Therefore and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of
the considered view that, grant of compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Thousand only) per month towards financial loss due to failure of
respondents in delivery of possession of Flat from the due date of delivery of
possession as per Agreement of Sale Ex.A2, i.e., 19.05.2023 to till date of
this order, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the complainant is
granted compensation for the period i.e., from the due date of delivery of
possession of Flat, i.e., from 19.05.2023 to 07.03.2025, i.e., the date of
order, i.e., 21 months 15 days, viz. Rs.20,000/ x 21 months and 15 days =
Rs.4,30,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Thirty Thousand only) towards
financial loss due to payment of rents for the rented flat.
15.

The complainant has booked the flat in March, 2020. The possession

of the flat was agreed to be given by 19.05.2023, i.e., after (30) months from

---

the date of Agreement of Sale Ex.A2. The sale deed Ex.A1 was executed on
01.-09.2021 on payment of entire sale consideration. It is well known fact
that in Indian culture, a person in every family would have desire to own a
house during his life time from his savings or even by obtaining loan.
Persons taking such course to own house would have plan to settle in such
house and would be attached more in such issue emotionally. When the
feelings of such persons are affected by delay in delivery of possession or by
false promise as in the instant case, they would be put to mental agony and
harassment. It is very difficult to assess such mental agony and harassment
in the shape of money.

Hon’ble Supreme Court has said so in catena of

decisions. The attitude of respondent No.1 having agreed to sell the flat
remaining ex parte leaving the complainant at the mercy of respondent No.2
is also to be noted. At the same time, respondent No.2 having first booked
the Flat and collected amount as above took stand that he is not answerable
in the case as there is no privity of contract between him and the
complainant.

These circumstances can thrown light as to how the

complainant was made to suffer to get possession, especially having paid
entire consideration and getting sale deed Ex.A1 executed. In all these facts
and circumstances, I am of considered view that grant of compensation at
Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) towards
harassment and mental agony would meet the end of justice.
16.

For all the foregoing reasons, the conclusion that emerges on Point

Nos.1 to 3 is that the Adjudicating Officer has no power to grant interest for
every month delay till handing over possession of the Flat and that there is

---

no privity of contract between the complainant and respondent No.2 and
that the complainant is entitled for compensation from respondent No.1 as
under:
Sl.No.

Head(s)

1

Compensation towards financial loss due to
stay in rented Flat and payment of rent.
Compensation towards harassment and
mental agony.
Compensation towards cost of litigation

2
3

TOTAL

Amount (in
rupees)
Rs.4,30,000-00
Rs.2,50,000-00
Rs. 10,000-00
Rs.6,90,000-00

(Rupees Six Lakhs and Ninety Thousand only)
17.

IN THE RESULT, respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount of

Rs.6,90,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Ninety Thousand only) towards
compensation within sixty (60) days from the date of this order, failing
which, he shall also be liable to pay interest @ 10% per annum (today’s
highest MCLR rate of 8% plus 2%) from the date of this order till realization
as per Rule 15 of the Rules. The complaint is allowed accordingly against
respondent No.1.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court
on this, the 7th day of MARCH, 2025.
Sd/ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
NONE

---

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1
Ex.A2
Ex.A3
Ex.A4
Ex.A5

Dt.01.09.2021
Dt.19.11.2020
Dt.11.04.2018
Dt.08.04.2021
Dt.29.07.2023

Ex.A6
Ex.A7

Dt…03.2020
Dt.04.01.2025

Ex.A8

Dt.Nil

Ex.A9

Dt.04.01.2025

Ex.A10

Dt.Nil.

Ex.A11 Dt.28.01.2020
Ex.A12
Dt.Nil

Ex.A13

Dt.Nil

Ex.A14 Dt.21.01.2025

Copy of Sale Deed.
Copy of Agreement of Sale.
Copy of Rental Agreement.
e-mail sent to the complainant by the respondent.
e-mail sent by the complainant the legal
department of Bridge group India.
Mail showing the broucher with images.
Statement of Account of complainant with Union
Bank for the period from 0`.03.1010 to
31.03.2020.
Detailed statement in respect of account of
complainant with ICICI Bank for the period from
01.03.2020 to 11.03.2020.
Statement of Account of complainant with Union
Bank for the period from 15.03.2020 to
18.03.2020.
Detailed statement in respect of account of
complainant with ICICI Bank for the period from
01.03.2020 to 11.03.2020.
Copy of Supplementary Agreement.
Letter issued for Bridge Constructions Pvt.Ltd
acknowledging receipt of Rs.5,24,080/- from the
complainant towards amenities services and GST
@ 5%.
Notice issued by RERA to Sri Goli Sravan Kumar,
Managing Partner of M/s.Bridge Constructions
Pvt.td. Hyderabad on the complaint given by the
complainant.
Copy of order passed by the RERA authority in
Complaint No.46 of 2024.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT No.2:
Ex.B1 Dt.01.06.2021 Order issued by RERA extending timeline for
statutory compliance of Project for a further period
of (6) months on account of Covid-19 Pandemic
Ex.B2 Dt.29.07.2023 Mail sent to the complainant by the legal
department of Bridge group India.
Ex.B3
Dt.Nil
Copy of statement of account for the period
from01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021.
Ex.B4
`
Copy of Occupancy Certificate.
Ex.A5
Xerox copies of photos (marked subject to objection)
Sd/ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.
Cc.

---