Order in Complaint No 2/2024/TG RERA

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this, the 7th day of OCTOBER, 2024.
Present:- Sri Syed Lateef-ur Rahman,
Adjudicating Officer.
COMPLAINT No.2/2024/TG RERA
Between:
Sri Yalla Eswar Rao S/o Subba Rao, aged: 57 years,
Occ: Singareni Collieries employee R/o Qr.No.C-435,
Rudrampur, Penagadapa, Kothagudem.
and

…Complainant.

M/s. G.R.R.Realties, Khammam, having its Registered
Office at H.No.11.3.111/2, Nehru Nagar, Khammam, rep.,
by its Managing Partner Sri Gurram Prakash S/o Rama Rao,
aged: 49 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o Chandra Heights, Flat No.302,
4th Floor, VDOs Colony, Khammam 507002.

…Respondent.

This complaint came up for hearing before me on 20.09.2024 in the presence of Sri
Y. Satyanarayana, Counsel for the Complainant and the Respondent remained set 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 read with Sec.71 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to grant
compensation of Rs.69,68,000/-.
CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT:
2(a). The factual matrix as gathered from the complaint and sale deed dt.27.09.2016
reveals that the respondent GRR Realties, Khammam rep., by its Managing Partner Sri

---

Gurram Prakash is the owner and possessor of open land admeasuring 22,022 Sq.yards of
Sy.No.156/A situated at Velugumatla Revenue village, Khammam Mandal, Khammam
District. The respondent decided to construct a Gated-community named as “GRR Sreenivasam”.

They approached the authorities for approval of permission for

construction of residential apartment Block “VASISTA” with cellar stilt (i.e., earmarked for
parking) plus ground+ 4 upper floors (each floor consisting of 10 flats) as per sketch plan.
The permission was accorded by the Secretary, Village Panchayat, Velugumatla with due
approval and technical clearance by the Director of Town and Country Planning, Warangal
vide Proc.BP No.41/2012/W, dt.23.02.2012.
2(b). The respondent later offered to sell RCC roofed residential Flat No.108 in Ground
floor with a total plinth area of 1102 Sft. (including common area) together with
proportionate undivided share of 39 Sq.yards out of total extent of 22,022 Sq. yards in said
land along with one Car parking area as shown in schedule for sale consideration of
Rs.14,00,000/- and the complainant has agreed to purchase the same for the said
consideration.
2©.

In pursuance of said offer and acceptance, the complainant paid an amount of

Rs.1,40,000/- as advance by way of cash and balance sale consideration of Rs.12,60,000/through Canara Bank, Kothagudem Branch by obtaining loan. The respondent has executed
a sale deed on 27.09.2016 vide Document No.10031/2016. But, the respondent has failed
to hand over possession of the flat even after 7 years of execution of said sale deed. The
complainant pleads that he is entitled for refund of amount, interest thereon, registration
charges, damages for 7 years and compensation.

Therefore, the complainant prays to

---

award compensation of Rs.69,68,000/- (Rupees Sixty nine lakhs and sixty eight thousand
only).
REGISTRATION OF COMPLAINT:
3.

On filing of present complaint, it was numbered by the Authority and made over to

the Adjudicating Officer for disposal in accordance with law.
NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT:
4.

Notices were issued to the respondent number of times by RPAD and the same were

not served properly to treat the service as proper. At last, when the case was posted for
steps, the complainant has engaged an Advocate, who filed a petition for substituted
service and allowed. Accordingly, as per order, the complainant published a publication in
“Namasthe Telangana” Telugu Daily edition of Khammam District edition for appearance of
the respondent on 19.07.2024. The respondent called absent on 19.07.2024 and he has
been set ex parte.
EX PARTE EVIDENCE:
5.

The complainant in support of his case, filed his affidavit in lieu of his evidence as

CW1 and Exs.A1 to A4 are marked on his behalf.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
6.

Now the Points for consideration are:
1) Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?
2) If so, for what amount?

---

POINTS No.1 AND 2:
7.

It is the case of the complainant that the respondent has offered to sell Flat No.108

with plinth area of 1102 Sft. for Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs only) and the
complainant has agreed to purchase the same. Later, the complainant paid an advance of
Rs.1,40,000/- through cash and balance amount of Rs.12,60,000/- (Rs.Twelve lakhs and
sixty thousand only) through Canara Bank, Kothagudem Branch by obtaining loan and the
respondent executed Registered Sale deed on 27.09.2016, but failed to hand over
possession though a period of 7 years passed. As such, the complainant has filed this case
for compensation.
8(a). The respondent failed to appear and contest the claim of the complainant and
remained ex parte as noted supra. The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of his evidence
and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the Registered Sale deed dt 27.09.2016 executed by
the respondent in favour of the complainant. Ex.A2 is the letter dt.03.08.2024 issued by
Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Kothagudem about sanction of loan to the complainant.
Exs.A3 are colour photos of incomplete building constructed by the respondent. Ex.A4 is
order of the Authority in Form-M vide complaint No.1592 of 2023.
8(b). The affidavit of complainant in lieu of his evidence coupled with said Exs.A1 to A4
and the fact that the respondent having sold the said flat, failed to hand over its possession
to the complainant and the fact that the respondent did not choose to contest the claim of
the complainant, go to prove the contention of the complainant that the respondent has
failed to act upon the promise made by him and he is certainly at fault and conduct of the

---

respondent squarely falls within the purview of Section 18 (3) of the Act. As such, the
complainant is entitled for compensation.
9.

In view of said conclusion that the complainant is entitled for compensation, it has

to be noted that the compensation has to be granted under the heads pecuniary and nonpecuniary. 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:
“Sec.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)
(b)
(c)
(d)
10.

the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever
quantifiable, made as a result of the default;
the amount of loss caused as a result of the default;
the repetitive nature of the default;
such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to
the case in furtherance of justice.”
For determining the compensation to be granted to the complainants 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.
11.

In the instant case, it is not the case of the complainant that the respondent has got

any disproportionate gain or unfair advantage as a result of his default.
12(a). Now the question is for how much compensation the complainant is entitled. The
complainant in the pleadings pleaded that the respondent executed sale deed Ex.A1 in the
month of September, 2016 and failed to hand over possession, though a period of 7 years
has passed and, therefore, he prayed to order for refund of total amount with interest,
registration charges, bank loan, travelling charges and damages to a tune of Rs.69,68,000/-.
12(b).

As noted above, the complainant has prayed to order refund of amount with

interest and Bank loan. 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: 1111-2021, 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.”

12©. Admittedly, Hon’ble Authority has disposed of the matter

in Form-M complaint

filed by the complainant in Complaint No.1592/2023 vide order 10.04.2024 (Ex.A4). In
view of this

and in view of said categorical pronouncement by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it

has to be held that the complainant is not entitled for said relief of refund with interest and
Bank loan in this complaint.
13(a). The complainant has pleaded that a period of 7 years has passed from the date of
execution of sale deed Ex.A1, but possession of the flat is not yet given and as such he is
entitled for damages.
13(b). The complainant in affidavit in lieu of his evidence as CW1 has stated that at the
time of execution of sale deed Ex.A1, the respondent promised to make the flat ready for
habitation within one or two months. However, the respondent did not fulfil his promise
and the building is still in semi-construction stage. He has further stated that he has filed
photographs showing stage of construction of flats Ex.A3. This evidence of CW1 gets
support from photos Ex.A3 coupled with the fact that the respondent did not choose to
challenge/contest the case of the complainant. In Ex.A1 sale deed, the respondent at Page

---

No.3 in condition No.6 has stated that the vendor delivered vacant physical possession of
the flat to the purchaser, which is admittedly false.
14. It is settled law that the party has to first plead his case and then seek relief. The
complainant has simply pleaded that there is delay of 7 years in giving possession of the
flat and as such he is entitled for damages and travelling expenses.
15.

The complainant did not plead in his pleading as to how much rent he is paying for

the present accommodation in his occupation due to non delivery of possession of flat
under Ex.A1 sale deed. He has also not pleaded as to how much rent he would have got
from the flat purchased under Ex.A1 sale deed if possession was given as promised to
contend that he sustained such and such loss and as such he is entitled for the same
compensation towards loss of rent. On the basis of these factors, whether the plea of
complainant for grant of compensation due to delay of 7 years in giving possession has to
be rejected. In my considered view, when the complainant has pleaded that there is delay
of 7 years in giving possession of the flat having executed Ex.A1 sale deed by the
respondent and as such he is entitled for compensation, the plea of the complainant for
grant of compensation cannot be rejected straightaway on said grounds. However, the said
plea of the complainant for grant of compensation has to be taken into consideration and
decided cautiously. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of
the flat purchased under Ex.A1 sale deed, place of location of flat etc., and the rent which
the complainant would have fetched if the flat purchased let out on rent, I am of the
considered view that the flat in question would have fetched a rent of minimum of
Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of sale deed, if the respondent had delivered its

---

possession as mentioned in sale deed Ex.A1. This amount of rent of Rs.4,000/- per month if
calculated for the delay of 7 years as pleaded by the complainant, the loss of amount of rent
sustained by the complainant would be Rs.4,000/- x 12x 7= Rs.3,36,000/- (Rupees Three
lakhs and thirty six thousand only). Therefore, the complainant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.3,36,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs and thirty six thousand only) as compensation
towards loss of rent.
16.

As observed above, the complainant is also entitled for compensation under head

non-pecuniary. Normally, Indians are emotionally attached to own a residential house for
the family. They will be prepared to spend major share of their life time earnings and ready
to obtain loan from the financial institutions with the hope of getting home for the family.
Because of fault and mischief on the part of the respondent, the complainant could not get
possession of the flat and stay therein with their children and had to seek remedy under
existing law and for that they had to suffer mental agony due to harassment and had to
incur expenditure to obtain legal assistance to pursue his claim.

Considering such

harassment and mental agony, which fall under the scope of Section 72 (d) of the Act, other
reasons assigned supra and the fact that the complainant was induced to part an amount of
Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs only) for purchase of flat and the same was
retained by the respondent without any justification, especially for no fault on the part of
the complainant, I am of the considered view that award of compensation under nonpecuniary head for mental agony and harassment at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakh only)
would meet the end of justice.

Besides this, the complainant is also entitled for

compensation towards legal expenses and other expenses at Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty
thousand only). Accordingly, the complainant is entitled for such amounts under said

---

heads as compensation. The Points are accordingly answered in favour of the complainant
and against the respondent.
CONCLUSION:
In view of findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, the conclusion that emerges is that the
complainant is entitled for compensation from the respondent as under:
Sl.No.

Head

Amount (in Rupees)

1

Compensation towards loss of rent.

Rs.3,36,000-00

2

Compensation towards harassment and mental
agony.
Compensation towards cost of litigation.

Rs.1,00,000-00

TOTAL

Rs.4,56,000-00

3

Rs. 20,000-00

(Rupees Four lakhs and fifty six thousand only).
25.

IN THE RESULT, the respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,56,000/-

(Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Six 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 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
7th day of OCTOBER, 2024.
Sd/ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.

---

Date: 27.09.2016:

Registered Sale deed.

Ex.A2

Date: 03.08.2024:

Letter issued by the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Kothagudem.

Ex.A3

Date: NIL

Color photographs (5 in number) showing incomplete building.

Ex.A4

Date: 10.04.2024:

Copy of order passed by the Authority in Complaint
No.1592/2023.

Witnesses Examined for Respondent
None
(Respondent remained Ex parte)
Exhibits marked for Respondent

NIL
Sd/-

ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD

---