Order in Complaint No. C.C.P.No.06/2024/TG RERA

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 23rd day of SEPTEMBER, 2024.
Present:- Sri Syed Lateef-ur Rahman,
Adjudicating Officer.
Between:

C.C.P.No.06/2024/TG RERA
Sri Chiruvolu Ravi Shankar.

and

…Complainant.

M/s.Modi Realty Genome Valley LLP, rep., by Sri Soham Modi,
authorized representative of its Partner M/s. Modi Housing Pvt.Ltd.
…Respondent.
This complaint came up for hearing before me on this day in the presence of
complainant himself in person and Sri M.A.Lateef, Advocate appeared on behalf of
respondent, upon perusing the memo filed by them and after hearing and having stood
over for consideration, 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”) to grant compensation.
2.

It is the case of the complainant that he booked Flat No.118 from the Respondent

in the project named as “Bloomdale Residency at Genome Valley” forming part of
Sy.No31, situated at Muraharipally village, Yadaram Grampanchayat, Shamirpet Mandal,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District on 30.07.2021 by paying initial amount of Rs.25,000/- and
obtained loan amount of Rs.23,75,000/- from ICICI Bank. An agreement of sale was
executed between the complainant and the respondent on 04.08.2021 and as per the
agreement, the completed flat was to be delivered by 31st January, 2023 with a grace
Page 1 of 3

---

As such, the complainant filed this complaint seeking compensation of

Rs.1,02,400/- towards rental loss and Rs.75,000/- towards mental agony etc.
3.

On behalf of respondent, Sri M.A.Lateef, Advocate filed counter.

4.

When the matter was coming up for enquiry/hearing, the complainant filed a

memo praying to accord permission to withdraw complaint with a liberty to file fresh
complaint.
5.

Notice of Memo is given to the Counsel for Respondent, who reported no

counter.
6.

Heard both sides.

7.

Perused the memo. In the facts and circumstances stated in the memo and in

view of the fact that the Counsel for the respondent reported no counter, the memo filed
by the complainant has to be allowed permitting the complainant to withdraw the
complaint with a liberty to file a fresh complaint.
8.

In the result, the complaint is disposed off as “withdrawn” allowing memo

permitting the complainant to file a fresh complaint. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this,
the 23rd day of SEPTEMBER, 2024.
Sd/ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.
Page 2 of 3

---

ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.

Page 3 of 3

---