Order in Complaint No. 4/2024/TG RERA

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 23rd day of July, 2024.
Present:- Sri Syed Lateef-ur Rahman,
Adjudicating Officer.
COMPLAINT No.4/2024/TG RERA
Between:
1) Sri Venkanna Gattu, H.No.6-2-1317, Balaji Colony,
Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda – 508 001.
2) Smt.Gattu Rajini, H.No.6-2-1317, Balaji Colony,
Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda – 508 001.

…Complainants.

and
M/s.Krishnaiah Projects Pvt.Ltd, H.No.8-2-502/1A,
JIVI Towers, Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034.

…Respondent.

This complaint came up for hearing before me on 05.07.2024 in the presence of
Sri M.Shyam Prasad, Counsel for the Complainants and of Sri Gudla Chakravarthy,
Counsel for the Respondent, and after hearing the arguments of both sides and having
stood over for consideration till this day, the following order is passed:

ORDER
The present complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) read with
Rule 35 of the Telangana State Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred as “the Rules”).
Case of the complainants:2(a). The factual matrix as gathered from the complaint reveals that the complainants
Venkanna Gattu and his wife Gattu Rajini being residents of Nalgonda intended to buy a
flat at Hyderabad, which is easily accessible to City and Airport, as their children settled

Page 1 of 23

---

The complainants were in search of litigation free property around

western part of Hyderabad.
2(b). During the month of February, 2023, the complainants have come across the
project by name “Bollineni Bion” under construction by the respondent.

The

complainants visited the site, verified title deeds and the fact that the project is already
registered with TS Real Estate Regulatory Authority. It is stated that according to latest
updates on RERA account by then, none of the flats were booked as on February, 2023.
2(c).

The complainants with great trust on promoter/respondent agreed to buy Flat

A2001 admeasuring 1840 Sq.feet of super built up area with single car parking on
confirmation by the respondent that the flat is free from all encumbrances for sale
consideration of Rs.1,78,83,633 (Rupees One Crore, Seventy eight lakhs, eighty three
thousand, six hundred and thirty three only).
2(d). It is alleged that the complainants have paid Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs
only) vide Cheque Dt.06.02.2023 as advance for booking the flat. They paid further
amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only) vide Cheque dt.15.02.2023 and
expressed readiness to execute agreement of sale. However, for want of proforma of
allotment letter and agreement of sale, the complainants have entered into sale
agreement with promoter for said flat on 25.02.2023. On the same day, they have also
entered into construction agreement with promoter and Tripartite agreement with
promoter and State Bank of India for availing a housing loan.
2(e). The complainants further plead that according to Construction Agreement Ex.A3,
the respondent agreed to complete construction and hand over possession of flat to the

Page 2 of 23

---

It is further pleaded that on payment of notes/demand notes from the

respondent, the complainants have paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
lakhs only) through Cheque dt.24.03.2023 and Rs.41,00,000/- (Rupees Forty One lakh
only) through cheque dt.10.04.2023. Thus, the total amount paid by the complainants
stand at Rs.74,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Four Lakhs only) and balance part was to be
taken care by housing loan from State Bank of India, where the complainants had
already applied in view of Tripartite Agreement and loan was sanctioned in principle
and waiting for disbursement.
2(g). According to the complainants, they received a demand payment communication
over e-mail from the promoter to pay Rs.1,04,83,632/- (Rupees One Crore, four lakhs,
eighty three thousand, six hundred and thirty two only). Thereupon, the complainants
approached the Bank with a request to disburse the housing loan amount to the
promoter. But to their surprise, the Bank authorities refused to disburse the loan on the
ground that they found that the subject flat A-2001 is already hypothecated to HDFC
Ltd., on the names of two borrowers, viz., Sundaram S/o Subramanian Sundaram
Kondaganallu and Venkateswaran S/o Sundaran Venkateswaran since 07.11.2022, i.e.,
much earlier than the complainants had entered into agreement of sale with promoter.
Thus, the respondent had already sold the said flat to said persons, who availed housing
loan. It is stated that the declaration made by the respondent that there are no disputes
whatsoever nature over the land as well as flat proposed to be sold is false.

Page 3 of 23

---

It is further pleaded that on 22.09.2023 the complainants have sent a WhatsApp

message to Vijay about pre-existing hypothecation of flat A-2001, who responded to
provide information by the end of the day, but in vain.
2(j).

It is then pleaded that the respondent entered into agreement of sale concealing

the fact of having already sold the flat to others and that the respondent in total
collected Rs.74,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy four lakhs only) from the complainants.
2(k). Therefore, the complainants pray to grant reliefs as under:
(a) Refund of Rs.74,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy four lakhs only) with interest in
addition to allotment of flat A-2001 free from encumbrances as per Section
19(4) of the Act, and
(b) To grant minimum compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy five
lakhs only) for harassment, mental agony and suffering due to cancellation of
their plan of vacation of three week at US and Europe where their two
children reside as per Section 18 (3) of the Act.

Reply by the Respondent:-

3(a). Respondent in its reply has not denied the booking of the flat A-2001 and deposit
of amount of Rs.74,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy four lakhs only) and execution of
agreement of sale on 25.02.2023, and also execution of construction agreement and
Tripartite agreement on the same date.

Page 4 of 23

---

It is further contended that the complainants have failed to establish that the

respondent did not deliver possession of property as agreed. According to respondent,
he has written two e-mail communications to the complainants to make payment of
balance sale consideration as per order of Hon’ble Authority dt.03.01.2024 and to come
forward for registration of the flat. But the complainants did not come forward to get
the sale deed executed.
3(d). The respondent also contends that the complainants have failed to plead and
produce documents to prove alleged harassment, mental agony and any incident in that
regard. The cancellation of vacation plan along with their children residing in USA is
very flimsy and invented.
3(e). Respondent further pleads that the Hon’ble Authority has conclusively decided
the subject matter between the parties vide order dt.03.01.2024 and the present
complaint is hit by principles of res judicata under Section 11 of CPC.
3(f).

The respondent also contends that there appears to be a mistake in showing the

property under hypothecation in favour of HDFC Bank. It is then stated that the
hypothecation has already been removed and resolved by October, 2023 as evident
from ‘No Objection Letter’ No.H/OP/679497951 dt,26,11,2023 of the Bank and it was
considered by Hon’ble Authority in order dt.03.01.2024. It is also contended that the

Page 5 of 23

---

As such, their complaint for

compensation is maintainable.
4(b). The complainants admit about receipt of two e-mail communications dated
17.02.2024 and 03.05.2024 to pay balance consideration from the respondent.
According to them, they sent reply e-mail on 04.05.2024, which the respondent is
conveniently ignoring.
4(c).

The complainants further plead that the contention of the respondent that

present complaint is hit by the principles of res judicata as Hon’ble Authority has
decided the matter in Form-M complaint is false. According to the complainants, Rule
34 of the Rules enable the complainants to file complaint before the Authority in Form
‘M’, whereas present complaint has been filed in Form-N as provided under Rule 35 of
the Rules. As such, the said contention of the respondent is not tenable.
4(d). It is further pleaded that the respondent offered to sell the flat A-2001 concealing
the fact of hypothecation since 26.10.2022 on the name of third party.

The

complainants and respondent entered into agreement of sale on 25.02.2023.

Six

Page 6 of 23

---

It is stated that the

complainants made multiple attempts by approaching the respondent since 20.07.2023
and their sales team, but in vain. On 22.09.2023, the complainants sent a Whats app
message to one Vijay, one of the sales team member at Mobile 8549000263 about the
issue of hypothecation, but in vain.
4(e). It is also contended that the respondent committed fraud as the fact of
hypothecation was concealed.

Further, though the respondent contends that the

mistake of hypothecation is rectified, but no such letter has been shared with the
complainants.
Hearing during enquiry:5.

When the case was taken up for hearing, both the parties placed reliance on

documentary evidence. Exs.A1 to 22 for complainants and Exs.B1 to B6 for respondent
are marked with consent.
Points framed for consideration:6.

Now the POINTS that arise, on the basis of pleadings of both parties, for

consideration are:
1)

Whether the complainants are entitled for refund of Rs.74,00,000/- (Rupees

Seventy four lakhs only) with interest in addition to allotment of flat as
pleaded?

Page 7 of 23

---

Whether the complainants have made out a case that the respondent failed to
discharge their obligations as envisaged under Sec.18 (3) of the Act to claim
compensation?
If so, to what relief?

7(1). POINT No.1:
Beside claiming compensation, the complainants have also prayed to order for
refund of amount of Rs.74,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy four lakhs only) paid with interest
in addition to allotment of flat in question. The present complaint is filed in Form-‘N’
which relates to claim of compensation. 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.”
7(2). Admittedly, Hon’ble Authority has disposed of matter in Form ‘M’ complaint filed
by the complainants in Complaint No.1205 of 2023, dt.03.01.2024 (Ex.A22). In view of

Page 8 of 23

---

Later, the complainants and respondent have entered into Sale

Agreement (Ex.A2) for purchase of said flat on 25.02.2023. On the same day, the
complainants have entered into Construction Agreement (Ex.A3) with respondent and a
Tripartite Agreement (Ex.A6) with the promoter/respondent and State Bank of India for
availing bank loan.
8(b). It is also an admitted fact that according to construction agreement Ex.A3, the
respondent agreed to complete construction and hand over possession of flat to the
complainants by the end of March, 2023. However, the respondent is entitled for a
grace period of six months, which completed by end of September, 2023.
8(c).

There is also no dispute that the complainants on payment notes from

respondent have paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) through

Page 9 of 23

---

through

Cheque dt.10.04.2023. Thus, the total amount paid by the complainants stands at
Rs.74,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy four lakhs only) and balance part was to be taken care
by housing loan from the State Bank of India, where the complainants had already
applied in view of Tripartite agreement and loan was sanctioned in principle and
waiting for disbursement.
9(a). Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the complainants have filed
present complaint in Form ‘N’ before passing of order by the Hon’ble Authority in Form‘M’ complaint. As such, the present complaint is not maintainable. Per contra, learned
Counsel for the complainants contended that the said contention advanced is not
tenable and the complainants have every right to file both complaints simultaneously.
9(b). I have considered the contentions on behalf of both parties. The provisions in
Section 31 of the Act read with Rules 34 and 35 of the Rules are very clear on the aspect
and there is no bar to file both complaints in Form-M before the Authority and Form-N
before the Adjudicating Officer simultaneously. As such, the said contention on behalf
of the respondent is not tenable.
10(a). Learned Counsel for the respondent next contended that the Hon’ble Authority
has conclusively decided the subject matter between the parties vide order
dt.03.01.2024 and present complaint is hit by the principles of res judicata.
10(b). On the other hand, learned Counsel for the complainants contended that the
powers of Hon’ble Authority under the Act are different as envisaged under the Act on a
complaint filed in Form-M, whereas the powers of the Adjudicating Officer are in
respect of grant of compensation or otherwise on a complaint filed in Form-N before the

Page 10 of 23

---

Learned Counsel submits that the

complainants instead of complying with the order of the Authority are pressing
present complaint with ulterior motive.
11(b). On the other hand, learned Counsel for the complainants contended that the
respondent offered to sell the flat A-2001 concealing the fact of hypothecation since
26.10.2022 on the name of third party. The complainants and the respondent entered
into agreement of sale on 25.02.2023.

Six months thereafter, on 20.07.2023, the

complainants have received an e-mail demanding to make payment of Rs.1,04,83,632/(Rupees One Crore, four lakhs, eighty three thousand, six hundred and thirty two only).
When the complainants approached the State Bank of India to request for disbursement
of loan amount, they were shocked to know that the said flat was already under
Page 11 of 23

---

Therefore, learned Counsel submits that the

contention on behalf of the respondent has to be rejected.
11(c). The relevant documents to consider said contentions are, viz., order of Hon’ble
Authority in Complaint No.1205/2023 dt.03.01.2024 Ex.A-22, Agreement of sale Ex.A2,
Construction agreement Ex.A3, Tripartite Agreement Ex.A6, Whats app message Ex.A8,
,letter issued by Chief Manager, SBI, Nalgonda Branch dt.18.09.2023 Ex.A10, Letter
issued by Authorized Signatory of HDFC Dt.26.10.2023 Ex.A12 and e-Mail dt.22.09.2023
sent by the complainant to the respondent Ex.A20.
11(c)(i).

Last four lines of order in Complaint No.1205/2023 dt.03.01.2024 of

Hon’ble Authority in Para 27 read as under:
“… … …However, since the parties have only entered into an agreement
of sale and have not executed a sale deed, the Respondent is only liable
in case he did not pay the mortgage amount while executing the sale
deed or handing over possession of the unit”.

Page 12 of 23

---

1 (c) (iii). One of the statements by the respondent at Page 3 in one para in bottom and
at page 4 in top of Construction Agreement Ex.A3 reads as under:
“And Whereas the First Party along with the Owners by an
Agreement for Sale of even date, has offered to Sell Schedule D
Property free from all encumbrances with right to construct and own
the Schedule D Apartment and the Second Party has accepted the
said offer and agreed to purchase the SCHEDULED D Property free
from all encumbrances with the right to construct and own Schedule
D Apartment for consideration in accordance with the scheme, the
Parties are entering into this Agreement on the terms and conditions
stated herein below ”

11 (c) (iv).
First Condition of terms and conditions between parties at page No.4 of
Tripartite Agreement Ex.A6 reads as under:
“The Builder states and declares that they have the absolute right,
title land interest to develop and construct Flats over the land and
that there are no encumbrances or disputes of whatsoever nature
over the lands as well as the Flat that is proposed to be conveyed to
the Borrower. The Builder and purchaser assure and declare not to
create any encumbrances over the land or the Flat covered under the
Tripartite Agreement”.
11(c) (v).

The Whatsapp message Ex.A8 sent by one of the Team Manager of

respondent by name Vijay reads as under:

Page 13 of 23

---

11 (c) (vi).

The letter from the Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Nalgonda Branch

dt.18.09.2023 Ex.A10 reads as under:
“With refer your loan application on the captioned subject and
advise that your housing loan application for purchase of residential
flat at Hyderabad bearing flat No.2001, A Block, Bollineni Bion is not
taken up favourably.
On verification/ search of your proposed flat in CERSAI
(Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security
Interest of India) we understand that the proposed flat (under
purchase) is already under mortgage on dated: 26/10/2022 by third
party against loan availed from another financial institution.
This is for your information. The letter is issued at your
request without any risk or liability on behalf of the undersigned or
the Bank”.
11(c) (vii).

Another letter issued by Authorized Signature of HDFC dt.26.10.2023

Ex.A12 reads as under:
“This is to certify that subject to Mr.Venkateswaran Sundram &
Mrs.Hema Venkateswaran repaying the loan of Rs.6300000 to HDFC
Bank Ltd. together with all its related dues or furnishing alternate
security acceptable to HDFC, HDFC shall have no objection in releasing
its charge in respect of property being FLAT- 2001, FLOOR-20,
BOLLINENI BION BLOCK A VIVA, S.No.42P, 43P, 45, 46. 47, 54-57P
75P,, KOTHAGUDA (V), SERILINGAMPALLY (M), R.R.DIST. Pin :
500084.”

11(c)(viii).

The e-mail dt.22.09.2023 Ex.A20 sent by the complainants to the

respondent shows that the complainants mentioned all the details from the date of
booking flat and till how the issue of hypothecation came to light subsequent to letter
dt.20.07.2023 of the respondent demanding payment etc.

Page 14 of 23

---

Having regard to these facts and circumstances, I am of the

considered view that there is force in the contentions advanced on behalf of the
complainants and there is no force in the contentions on behalf of the respondent.
12.

In view of aforesaid discussion, the respondent is certainly at fault and conduct

of respondent squarely falls within the purview of Section 18 (3) of the Act and,
therefore, the complainants are entitled for compensation. Point No.2 is answered
accordingly in favour of complainants and against the respondent.
13.

POINT No.3:
In view of finding on Point No.2, the complainants are entitled for compensation.

In my considered view, 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;
Page 15 of 23

---

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.
15.

In the instant case, it is neither the case of the complainants nor there is pleading

in the complaint that the respondent has got any disproportionate gain or unfair
advantage as a result of his default.
16.

There is also no pleading or claim made by the complainants that due to default

of the respondent in executing conveyance deed and giving possession of the flat, they
had to pay such and such rent or they could have got such and such rent if possession of

Page 16 of 23

---

The complainants have filed Exs.A13 to A16 documents to contend that they had

booked air tickets and cancelled due to alleged default on the part of the respondent.
The complainants have also filed Exs.A17 to A19 medical reports and prescriptions to
support their contention that on account of harassment and mental agony caused by the
respondent, Complainant No.2 fell sick and had to take treatment. The complainants did
not plead as to what was the loss due to such cancellation of tickets and how much
expenditure they incurred for medical expenses. When there is no such pleading and
claim by the complainants in the complaint, it is very difficult to consider their
contention to grant compensation on said counts. At the most, the said contentions
would be relevant while granting compensation for mental agony suffered by the
complainants.
18.

Apart from the factors for determining the quantum of compensation as

envisaged under Section 72 (a), (b) and (c) of the Act, compensation has also to be
considered and granted under Section 72 (d) of the Act, which reads as under:
“72. Factors to be taken into account by the Adjudicating Officer:-…. …. …
(d)such other factors which the adjudicating officer considers necessary to the
case in furtherance of justice”

19(a). It is the case of the complainants that all the circumstances from the sequence of
events underwent by them from the date of booking/selecting the flat till they filed
complaint in Form ‘M’, especially by the conduct of the respondent and his team with
pre-plan to deceive the complainants and making them enter into agreement of sale

Page 17 of 23

---

Therefore, the complainants prayed to award compensation of

Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy five lakhs only) towards harassment and mental agony.
19(b). Per contra, the respondent in counter contended that the complainants have not
produced any documentary evidence to prove alleged mental agony and harassment.
According to the respondent, the complainants must plead specific instances and details
of harassment faced by them. In the absence of any such pleading and proof, the
contention regarding harassment and mental agony is false.
19(c). During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the complainants contended
that due to harassment and mental agony, complainant No.2 fell sick and had to undergo
treatment as evidenced from medical reports Exs.A17 to A19. Learned Counsel also
contended that the complainants have booked Flight tickets to go to their children in US
and because of failure of respondent in acting on the agreement of sale etc., they had to
cancel the tickets as evident from Exs.A13 to A16.
19(d). Admittedly, the complainants and respondent entered into agreement of sale
Ex.A2 and construction agreement Ex.A3. The complainants, respondent and the State
Bank of India have also entered into a Tripartite agreement Ex.A6. Exs.A2, A3 and A6
have been executed on one date, i.e., 25.02.2023. In all these documents Exs.A2, A3 and
A6, there is an undertaking by the respondent that the Flat offered for sale is free from
all encumbrances.

According to complainants, they had paid Rs.74,00,000/-

and

balance part of payment was to be taken care by Housing Loan from State Bank of India
Page 18 of 23

---

On

20.07.02023 when they received a demand payment communication from respondent
to pay Rs.1,04,83,632/- (Rupees One Crore, four lakhs, eighty three thousand, six
hundred and thirty two only), they approached the Bank and the Bank refused to
disburse loan as the flat is under hypothecation to HDFC Limited in the name of
borrowers Sundaram and Venkateswaram since 07.11.2022, i.e., much prior to the
agreement of sale, construction agreement and Tripartite agreement Exs.A2, A3 and A6.
This contention of the complainants gets support from the letter of Chief Manager, State
Bank of India, Nalgonda dt.18.09.2023 Ex.A-10 and letter issued by HDFC Dt.26.10.2023
Ex.A12.
20(a). Learned Counsel for the respondent contends that subsequent to orders of
Hon’ble Authority in Complaint No.1205/2023, dt.03.01.2024, the respondent has
issued notices dated 17.02.2024 and 03.05.2024 Exs.B5 and B6 to the complainants to
pay balance consideration of Rs.1,08,82,267/- (Rupees One Crore, eight lakhs, eighty
two thousand, two hundred and sixty seven only) to get registration of sale-deed in
respect of the Flat in question, but the complainants have failed to obey the order of the
Authority. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled for any compensation.
20(b). On the other hand, learned Counsel for the complainants contends that Ex.A20 email dated 22.09.2023 sent by the complainants to the respondent and Ex.A8
dt.22.09.2023 Whats app message sent by one of the Team Managers of Respondent to
the Complainants show that the demand for payment under said notices Exs.B5 and B6
without removing charge over the property is not tenable. Hon’ble Authority in order
Ex.A2 observed that the respondent is liable to pay mortgage amount. Learned Counsel
contends that it is not the case of the respondent that he has removed/cleared the
Page 19 of 23

---

As noted supra, apart from the factors for determining the quantum of

compensation envisaged under Section 72 (a), (b), (c) of the Act, this Authority has
power under Section 72 (d) of the Act to consider other factors, which are considered
necessary to the case in furtherance of justice.
22(a). It is pertinent to mention that the complainants could not get the title and
possession of the flat in question by getting conveyance deed executed on release of
housing loan by the Bank due to hypothecation of flat and 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 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 complainants could not get title document executed
and possession of flat and stay therein with their children as per their plan as pleaded
and had to seek the remedy under existing law and for that they had to suffer mental
agony due to harassment and had to incur expenses to obtain legal assistances to persue
their claim. The harassment of the complainants could be gauged from the fact that they
were made to pay a total sum of Rs.74,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy four lakhs only)
Page 20 of 23

---

Considering such harassment and mental agony, the quantum of

compensation has to be assessed especially keeping in view the amount paid and
retained by the respondent coupled with other facts and circumstances of the case.
22(b). Thus, keeping in view the psychology of the Indian society in respect of owning a
house for family, mental agony suffered by the complainants referred above which fall
under the scope of Section 72 (d) of the Act and other reasons assigned supra and the
fact that the respondent induced the complainants to part with a heavy amount of
Rs.74,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy four lakhs only) for offering to sell the flat and retained
the same without any justification, especially for no fault on the part of the
complainants, I am of the considered view that award of compensation for mental agony
and harassment, which is non-pecuniary at Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only)
would meet the ends of justice.
23.

Beside above, the complainants are also entitled for compensation towards legal

assistance and other expenses to pursue the litigation. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Authority is of the considered view that award of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards cost of litigation would meet the
ends of justice. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

Page 21 of 23

---

In view of finding on Point Nos.2 and 3, the conclusion that emerges is that the

complainants are entitled for compensation from the respondent as under:
Sl.No.

Head(s)

1
2

Compensation on account of mental agony.
Compensation on account of litigation expenses
TOTAL

Amount (in
rupees)
4,00,000-00
20,000-00
4,20,000-00

(Rupees Four lakhs and Twenty Thousand only)
25.

IN THE RESULT, the respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,20,000/-

(Rupees Four Lakhs and Twenty 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 23rd day of JULY, 2024.
Sd/ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.
WITNESSES EXAMINED
NONE
Exhibits marked for complainants:

Ex.A1
Ex.A2
Ex.A3

Dt.27.06.2019
Dt.25.02.2023
Dt.25.02.2023

Ex.A4

---

Registration Certificate of Project issued by RERA
Photo copy of Agreement of Sale.
Photo copy of Construction agreement between the
Respondent and Complainants.
Photo copy of documents uploaded in the RERA
Website.
Page 22 of 23

---

---

Ex.A6

Dt.25.02.2023

Ex.A7
Ex.A8
Ex.A9

Dt.21.09.2023
Dt.22.09.2023
---

Ex.A10

Dt.18.09.2023

Ex.A11
Ex.A12
Ex.A13
Ex.A14
Ex.A15
Ex.A16

Dt.02.05.2024
Dt.26.10.2023
Dt.07.06.2024
Dt.04.05.2023
Dt.04.05.2023
Dt.07.06.2024

Ex.A17
Ex.A18
Ex.A19
Ex.A20
Ex.A21
Ex.A22

Dt.19.07.2023
Dt.16.09.2023
Dt.11.01.2024
Dt.22.09.2023
--03.01.2024

Photo copy information uploaded in the RERA Website
stating that sales not started and allotment not done.
Photo copy of Tripartite agreement between the
Complainants, respondent and State Bank of India.
Photo copy of Asset Based Search Report of CERSAI.
Photo copy showing the Whats app message.
Photo copy of Form-B Affidavit cum Declaration of
respondent.
Letter issued by Chief Manager, SBI Nalgonda stating
that the loan application of complainants was not taken
up favourably.
Photo copy showing status updated on RERA Website
Letter issued by HDFC vide file No.H/OP/L/679497951.
Copy of e-Mail containing Flight Tickets of complainants
Copy of flight ticket of Complainant No.2.
Copy of flight ticket of Complainant No.1.
e-mail sent to the Airlines for refund of flight
cancellation amount.
Photo copies of diagnostic reports of Complainant No.2.
Photo copy of medical prescription of Complainant No.2.
Photo copy of medical prescription of Complainant No.2.
e-mail sent by Complainant to Sri M.S.Prasad.
Extract showing what causes insomnia.
Photo copy of true copy of order dt.03.01.2024 passed in
Complaint No.1205/2023 by TG RERA.
Exhibits marked for Respondent

Ex.B1
Ex.B2
Ex.B3
Ex.B4
Ex.B5

Dt.02.01.2024
Dt.25.11.2023
Dt.30.12.2023
--Dt.17.02.2024

Ex.B6

Dt.03.05.2024

Architect’s certificate (F1).
Chartered Accountant’s Certificate (Form-3)
Engineer’s Certificate (F2)
Organization Contact Details.
Copy of notice issued by Respondent Complainant
No.1 to clear all dues and make arrangements for
registration of Unit A-2001.
Another copy of notice issued by Respondent
Complainant No.1 to clear all dues and make
arrangements for registration of Unit A2001.

Sd/-

ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD

Page 23 of 23

---