Order Complaint No. 107 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]

Quorum:

Complaint No. 107 of 2024
Dated this 5th of August 2025
Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member

M/s Pranava Elite Association
(Rep by President Mr. Sai Baba, #Pranava Elite, Plot no. 96&97, Srila Gardens, Miyapur, Hyd500049, RC.no.3602093-2095)

…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s HarisPranava Builders
(Flat no.101, Plot no. 98& 99, Manu Infra Avenue, Road no.2, Kakateeya Hills, Madhapur, Ranga
Reddy District – 500081)

2. Smt. Bussa Swetha
(Managing Partner - Flat no.101, Plot no. 98& 99, Manu Infra Avenue, Road no.2, Kakateeya Hills,
Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District – 500081)

3. Sri Harish Chandra Reddy
(Managing Partner- - Flat no.101, Plot no. 98& 99, Manu Infra Avenue, Road no.2, Kakateeya Hills,
Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District – 500081)

…Respondent(s)
This present Complaint came up for hearing on 15.04.2025 before us for hearing in the
presence of Counsel Anup Koushik Karavadi for Complainant and Counsel K.ChandraMouly
for the Respondent and upon hearing both the arguments on both sides and the matter reserved
over for the consideration till this date ,this Authority passes the present complaint order.
ORDER
2.

The Complainant has filed complaint on hand under Section 31 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "RE(R&D) Act"), read
with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
1 of 14

---

The Brief facts of the case as per allegations/averments contained in the complaint

are as follows:
3.

The Complainant is a Mutually Aided Cooperative Society, registered under the

Telangana Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995, bearing Registration No. 36020932095 dated 17.02.2023. The Society comprises individual flat owners of Pranava Elite
Residential Building and was established with the primary objectives of Providing
maintenance, repair, and replacement services related to equipment and consumables essential
for upkeep of common areas and facilities.Ensuring access to essential services such as sanitary
and potable water, common area cleanliness, provision of electricity, lighting, and watch and
ward services also acting as a collective body for representation before authorities for redressal
of grievances related to the above.
4.

It is stated that the formation and functioning of the Society have been in strict

compliance with the statutory framework. An elected committee constituted on 19.02.2019
governs the Society in accordance with duly adopted bye-laws and through collective decisionmaking by majority voting.
5.

The Respondents are the builders/promoters/vendors of the project Pranava Elite,

constructed pursuant to Building Permit Order No. 2/C21/03039/2019 dated 19.02.2019. The
approved plan pertains to construction of 1 stilt + 5 upper floors with a built-up area of 1645.3
sq. mts.
6.

It is the case of the Complainant that various irregularities and deficiencies have been

observed by the flat owners in respect of the construction and amenities in the said project.
Consequently, on 10.01.2024, a resolution was passed by the Society notifying multiple
deviations committed by the Respondents. Based on the said resolution, a representation was
submitted to the Respondents calling upon them to address and rectify the issues.
7.

As per the Complainant, the following specific obligations arising under the sanctioned

building plan, sale deed clauses, and promotional materials were either unfulfilled or violated
by the Respondents:
a. The Respondents failed to construct a watchmen/security room in the basement/cellar as
mandated by the approved plan.

2 of 14

---

It is alleged that various promises were made to flat buyers at the time of sale, including

the construction of a second gate, installation of transformers and generators, and a watchmen
room, all in conformity with the building permit order dated 19.02.2019. However, these
assurances have not been honoured.
9.

The Complainant submits that members of the Society placed complete faith in the

Respondents’ representations and invested their life savings in purchasing the flats. However,
the acts of the Respondents have violated their statutory obligations under the RE(R&D) Act,
as well as GHMC construction norms.
10.

After possession, the flat owners reportedly observed multiple quality issues, including

wall cracks, water leakage, and dislodgement of wooden frames due to use of poor-quality,
uncertified construction materials.
11.

There have also been difficulties related to parking, as the parking area lacks adequate

sizing and demarcation. Numerous complaints to the Respondents were met with silence, and
no corrective action has been initiated.

3 of 14

---

It is further alleged that Respondents have unlawfully sold and allotted parking areas in

the premises to unauthorized persons, including owners of Flat No. 501 and Plots 97 & 98 of
"Pranava Residency", thereby depriving legitimate owners of their rightful parking spaces.
13.

Even prior to the formation of the Society, individual flat owners had repeatedly

communicated their grievances to the Respondents. However, such communications were
ignored, without any constructive response.
14.

The Complainant further states that it was the obligation of the Respondents to initiate

formation of a society or association, which was willfully evaded. Allegedly, the Respondents
encroached upon common areas and delayed institutionalization of a residents’ body for
personal gain. Consequently, the flat owners were compelled to independently constitute the
present Society for effective management and protection of collective rights.
15.

Acting through the Society, the Complainant submitted formal representations

highlighting all aforementioned issues. Despite service of the representation upon the
Respondents on 20.01.2024, the Respondents issued a reply dated 24.01.2024 through an
advocate, denying the claims and raising baseless contentions, contrary to the terms of the
registered sale deeds and approved plan.
16.

The Complainant further contends that the construction carried out by the Respondents

is in direct contravention of Section 14 of the RE(R&D) Act, as well as the brochure circulated
at the time of marketing the project. The Petitioners reserve their right to seek compensation
under applicable legal provisions before appropriate forums.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
17.

In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Complainant Society respectfully

prays that this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to pass orders directing the Respondents to:
i.

Complete the construction of the Watchmen Room, and fulfill the commitment to
construct the same in the cellar area, in strict conformity with the approved building
plan;

ii.

Install separate electrical transformers for each block, as per the sanctioned building
plan, within a time period to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Authority;

iii.

Provide individual and independent generators for each block, in accordance with the
approved layout plan and promotional representations made to the flat buyers;

iv.

Construct a second gate at the designated location within the project premises, in
adherence to the approved layout plan and in compliance with applicable building
norms;
4 of 14

---

Replace all rusted, decayed, and non-standard construction materials, including but not
limited to wooden frames and doors, with ISI-certified fittings and durable materials of
appropriate quality;

vi.

Rectify structural defects and construction deficiencies by engaging qualified experts to
refill all visible cracks in the structural walls using standard crack-filling materials and
approved procedures, and to remedy water leakages, wall seepage, and detachment of
wooden fixtures;

vii.

Replot and redesign the parking area and driveway, ensuring that parking spaces are of
standard and adequate dimensions, and allot one such space to each unit holder, leaving
surplus parking slots available for use by visitors, staff, and service providers;

viii.

Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Authority may deem just, fit, and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

C. Reply of the Respondent:
18.

The Respondent submits the following detailed response to the complaint filed by

certain residents of Block A in the residential apartment project developed by the Respondent.
The allegations made in the complaint are denied in their entirety unless specifically admitted
herein, and it is submitted that the same are not only factually misconceived but also legally
untenable.
19.

At the outset, the Respondent submits that the entire residential apartment complex,

including Block A and other residential blocks, was developed in accordance with the
sanctioned building plan, layout plan, and all requisite statutory approvals granted by the
competent authorities, including the Municipal Corporation and Urban Development
Department. The development was carried out in strict conformity with the permissions granted
under the applicable town planning laws, building regulations, and the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016.
20.

The Respondent clarifies that Block A was constructed as an integral part of the larger

residential development, and all infrastructure, amenities, and common areas were designed
and executed to cater to the needs of all residents of the project, including those residing in
Block A. The planning philosophy adopted for the project was that of a unified residential
complex with shared access to common amenities such as the clubhouse, landscaped gardens,
children's play area, jogging tracks, multipurpose hall, gymnasium, visitor parking, and internal
roads. These amenities were clearly depicted in the sanctioned plans and were consistently

5 of 14

---

Each allottee, including those from Block A, was provided with a draft of the

Agreement for Sale prior to execution, which unequivocally recorded the extent of the unit
being sold, the right to use common areas and facilities, and the non-exclusive nature of such
usage rights. The Respondent submits that the allegation that Block A was promised exclusive
use of any particular amenity is entirely false and contrary to the contractual documents
executed with the allottees. No such assurance was ever given verbally or in writing, and no
evidence to the contrary has been placed on record by the Complainants. The usage of the
clubhouse and other amenities by all blocks is in consonance with the principle of common
ownership and undivided share in the land and infrastructure.
22.

With respect to the grievance regarding the delay in formation of the association of

allottees, the Respondent submits that it has proactively engaged with residents of all blocks,
including Block A, to facilitate the formation and registration of the association under Section
11(4)(e) of the Act. Multiple meetings were convened, notices were circulated, and email
communications were sent requesting residents to come forward to form an ad hoc core
committee and finalize the bye-laws. Unfortunately, despite these initiatives, there was
considerable delay and discord among the residents themselves, with divergent opinions on
whether the association should be formed block-wise or for the project as a whole. A section of
residents from Block A insisted on a separate association, while others advocated for a unified
body, thereby resulting in a deadlock. The Respondent categorically submits that it cannot be
held responsible for the impasse created by the internal disagreements of the allottees.
23.

In accordance with its statutory obligations, the Respondent has drafted the model bye-

laws and deed of declaration and is ready to provide necessary support for registration. The
lack of consensus among residents is the principal cause of delay, and the Respondent reiterates
its willingness to extend administrative assistance and coordination to ensure compliance with
the Act.
24.

On the issue of parking, the Respondent submits that parking spaces have been allotted

strictly in accordance with the terms of the sale agreements. Where a specific parking slot was
promised and paid for by an allottee, the same has been allotted in writing and duly
demarcated. In all other cases, allocation has been done through a fair and transparent process,
ensuring that all residents receive adequate parking based on availability. The parking layout
was approved by the Municipal Corporation and forms part of the sanctioned plans. The

6 of 14

---

Allegations suggesting discrimination or preferential treatment in allotment of parking

to residents of other blocks over those of Block A are baseless and motivated. It is pertinent to
note that in certain instances, disputes among flat owners in Block A regarding their respective
parking boundaries and markings have led to confusion. However, such interpersonal
disagreements between residents fall outside the purview of the Respondent’s responsibilities,
especially after handover of possession.
26.

With regard to the quality of construction and materials used, the Respondent submits

that the entire project was constructed using high-quality, ISI-marked materials sourced from
reputed vendors. The construction was carried out under the supervision of qualified structural
engineers, architects, and third-party quality auditors who issued compliance and completion
certificates. All relevant quality test reports, including cube tests for concrete, steel testing
certificates, waterproofing certificates, and fire safety certifications, are available for
inspection.
27.

The Respondent categorically denies that any substandard or inferior materials were

used. The Respondent has addressed all legitimate complaints during the defect liability period
as mandated under Clause 12 of the Agreement for Sale and continues to provide maintenance
support. Seepage, plaster cracks, or minor wall dampness reported by some residents are
common occurrences in high-rise buildings subject to climatic variation and do not indicate
poor construction. The Respondent has always responded promptly to service requests and has
maintained an on-site maintenance team to attend to resident grievances.
28.

It is further submitted that several of the issues raised in the complaint are rooted in

conflicts among residents of Block A themselves, with differing factions making contradictory
demands. These disputes have led to miscommunication and unfounded allegations against the
Respondent. The Respondent cannot be held liable for delays or disagreements arising out of
such internal community discord. In fact, the Respondent has acted as a facilitator to resolve
many of these issues and has provided assistance beyond its contractual obligations to ensure a
smooth and peaceful living experience for all residents.
29.

Moreover, the Complainants have failed to produce any documentary evidence to

substantiate their allegations. Neither photographic proof nor expert reports nor correspondence
with the Respondent has been annexed to the complaint. The absence of such evidence
demonstrates that the complaint is speculative in nature and does not meet the evidentiary
threshold required for intervention by the Hon’ble Authority.
7 of 14

---

In conclusion, the Respondent submits that it has acted in good faith and has discharged

its contractual and statutory obligations diligently. The project has been developed in
accordance with the approved plans, and all promises made to allottees have been fulfilled. The
Respondent remains committed to cooperating with residents for formation of the association,
maintenance support, and overall project sustainability. It is therefore prayed that the complaint
be dismissed as being devoid of merit, and that the Respondent be granted such further relief as
this Hon’ble Authority may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
D. Rejoinder:
31.

Identity of Projects and Blocks in Law: The Respondents, in their quest for profiteering,

have

deceptively

merged

two

distinct

real

estate

projects

registered

with

TGRERAPranavaElite and Pranava Residencyinto a fictitious entity called Pranava Tranquil,
which is non-existent in the eyes of law.
a. Pranava Elite is a registered real estate project consisting of 15 residential units with 15
covered parking spaces, constructed on Plot Nos. 96 & 97. The RERA Application No. is
REA02400013144, and Project Registration No. is P02400001704, approved on 19.02.2019.
(Annexure – I)
b. Pranava Residency is separately registered, consisting of 10 residential units with 10 covered
parking spaces on Plot Nos. 97 & 98. RERA Application No. is REA02400013172, and Project
Registration

No.

is

P02400001884,

approved

on

28.09.2018.

(Annexure – II)
c. There exists no registered or approved project by the name Pranava Tranquil with 25 flats
divided into Blocks A & B. The same is a fictitious construct fabricated by the Respondents for
ulterior gain.
32.

Mechanism of Fraudulent Merger: The illegal merger was enabled through a calculated

series of misrepresentations, deviations from sanctioned plans, and contraventions of law:
a. Fraud upon GHMC: The Respondents constructed both projects simultaneously but erected a
separating wall during GHMC inspections to obtain the Occupancy Certificate. Post-inspection,
the wall was demolished, and the projects were fraudulently merged and misrepresented as a
single block (A & B).
b. Deviation from Sanctioned Plan: Absence of several essential amenities such as the South
Compound Wall, Transformer, Second Gate, Watchman Room, Generator, and deviation in the
number and size of parking spaces (16 instead of 15), all demonstrate violations.
8 of 14

---

Delay in Formation of Association: Due to the illegal merger, the Complainants were

unable to register the Society for three years, as under law, only members of a registered
project may form such an association. Owing to the legal impossibility of registering one
Society for two distinct legal entities, the Pranava Elite Association was finally registered on
17.02.2023.
34.

The obligation to form the association originally rested with the Respondents. Their
failure to do so, and the questioning of the legitimacy of the registered association at this
stage, is a mala fide tactic to delay proceedings and obfuscate the issue.

35.

In reply to Respondentsit is submitted that the Respondents are put to strict proof
regarding the legitimacy of permissions obtained, adherence to sanctioned plans, and
statutory compliance. The built-up area mentioned (106,502) was an inadvertent error being
rectified through an Interim Application.

36.

There exist no internal disputes among flat owners except those manufactured by the
Respondents. The police complaint cited by Respondents pertains to a single flat owner
acting in collusion with them and who has neither paid dues nor joined the Association.
Legal remedies are being pursued.

37.

The Respondents failed to construct a separate security/watchman room as promised.
This violates basic safety standards and is inconsistent with approved plans.

38.

Despite the legal separateness of the projects, the Respondents procured a single
transformer for both by misrepresenting the merged project to TSSPDCL. No written
consent from 2/3rd of the allottees has been obtained under Section 14 of the RERA Act,
2016.

39.

The Respondents’ concept of blocks is a legal fiction. The actual facts, backed by
TGRERA-approved documents, are as follows:
a.Parking Spaces: 15 approved, 16 constructed without written consent of 2/3rd of
allottees. Resulting congestion is a nuisance.
b. Allotment to Non-Resident: A parking space has been wrongfully allotted to a nonresident.
c. Biased Allotment: Allocation appears arbitrary and based on personal preferences.

40.

No separate generator for Pranava Elite has been provided. No consent was ever given

by 2/3rd allottees for a shared generator.
41.

Sub-standard construction practices have led to severe cracks and structural
deterioration. An Interim Application has been filed seeking expert inspection.Section 14(3)

9 of 14

---

The deviation from approved plans is stark—two gates shown, but only one

constructed. Any changes post-approval require 2/3rd consent which has not been obtained.
43.

Transfer of common areas is statutorily required under Sections 11(4)(a), 11(4)(f), 17,
and 19 of the RERA Act, 2016. The Respondents’ failure to do so, while hiding behind the
fictitious “block” structure, is mala fide.

44.

Approved layout shows two toilets near parking area, Watchman Room, Garbage Bin,
and Green Area (1-metre-wide on South). These are absent, violating approved plans and
endangering resident welfare.

E. Observations of the Authority:
45.

From the perusal of the record, and in brief, it is submitted by the Complainant

Association that they had collectively purchased units in the project titled “Pranava Elite”,
which was launched and developed by the Respondent and registered with this Authority under
Registration No. P-2400001704 dated 18.02.2020. The Complainants contend that after having
taken possession of their respective flats, they observed several deviations, deficiencies, and
non-adherence to sanctioned plans and statutory norms by the Respondent. Aggrieved by the
alleged failure of the Respondent to fulfil his obligations under the provisions of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Complainant Association has approached this
Authority seeking various reliefs, including rectification of structural defects, compliance with
sanctioned building plans, and provision of certain promised amenities and facilities.
46.

Whereas, the Respondent has denied all allegations. It is their submission that the

construction has been carried out strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and no
deviation has taken place. It was further stated that all materials used are ISI-marked and
conform to standard quality norms. The alleged structural defects and quality concerns have
been contested in totality.
47.

One of the reliefs sought pertains to the construction of a watchman room in the cellar,

allegedly promised by the promoter. The Authority has examined the sanctioned plan on record
and finds no provision for a watchman room in the cellar area. In absence of such a provision in
the sanctioned plan, the Authority is of the considered view that the promoter cannot be

10 of 14

---

The sanctioned plan does incorporate provision for toilets in the cellar. The Authority

directs the Respondent to construct the toilets as per the sanctioned plan without any further
delay.
49.

The Complainants have alleged that a separate transformer was to be provided for each

block. The Respondent contends that the existing transformer capacity is sufficient to cater to
both blocks, and no deficiency exists. The Authority notes that no electrical deficiency or
cogent documentary evidence has been submitted by the Complainants to refute the
Respondent’s claim or to demonstrate inadequacy in capacity. In the absence credible evidence,
the Authority finds no grounds to interfere anddeclines to grant reliefon this issue.
50.

With respect to the alleged requirement for separate generators for each block, the

Authority observes that no specific representation or commitment regarding separate generators
is found either in the RERA project Registration portal information or in the Agreement for
Sale executed between the parties. In the absence of any contractual obligation, this demand
cannot be entertained.
51.

The issue regarding the construction of a second entry gate has also been raised by the

Complainant Association. It is their case that, despite the Respondents having allegedly merged
two separately registered projects into one integrated complex, they failed to provide separate
entry gates for each project and instead constructed a single main gate catering to both blocks.
However, the sanctioned plan specifically depicts two separate gates for the project in which
the Complainants are allottees. The Respondent has contended that three gates have been
constructed, and that the elevation plan attached to the project brochure depicted two gates.
Upon examination of the sanctioned building plan, the Authority finds that two gates were duly
approved by the competent authority. In view of the same, and in terms of the mandate under
Section 14(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the promoter is
duty-bound to execute the project in strict conformity with the sanctioned plan and
specifications. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to ensure that the gate provisions are
implemented strictly as per the sanctioned plan. Any deviation therefrom is impermissible.
52.

The Complainants have further alleged poor construction quality, presence of structural

cracks, and use of rusted or substandard materials. In support of these claims, only three
indistinct photographs have been submitted. Upon careful scrutiny, the Authority finds that
11 of 14

---

In light of the above, the Authority holds that the Complainants have failed to discharge

the burden of proof in respect of the allegations relating to structural cracks and substandard
materials. Accordingly, no relief is granted on these issues.
54.

With respect to the issue of water seepage, the Respondent has neither categorically

denied its existence nor produced any material to rebut the allegation. Instead, the Respondent
has attributed the same to seasonal weather fluctuations, normal wear and tear, and alleged poor
maintenance by the allottees..
55.

The Authority finds this submission misconceived and untenable in law. It is necessary

to reiterate that under Section 14(3) of the said RE(R&D) Act, the promoter is liable to rectify
any structural defect or any other defect in workmanship, quality, or provision of services as
may be brought to his notice within a period of five years from the date of handing over
possession, and that too without any further charge to the allottee.
56.

In the present case, as the issue of water seepage has been raised within three years of

handing over possession evident by the Occupancy certificate dated 05.01.2021 the defect falls
well within the statutory defect liability period. The Respondent cannot abdicate its
responsibility by merely invoking general wear and tear or passage of time. Accordingly, the
Authority directs the Respondent to carry out necessary repairs and rectify the issue of water
seepage at the earliest, at no cost to the allottees.
57.

As regards the wall cracks, for the reasons already recorded, the Authority finds no

material evidence sufficient to substantiate the claim. Hence, this relief stands declined.
58.

The Complainants, in their rejoinder, have raised a significant contention alleging that

the Respondents have illegally merged two separately registered real estate projects, namely
“Pranava Elite” and “Pranava Residency”, and thereafter marketed and advertised the merged
project under the unauthorized name “Pranava Tranquil”. As per the records, the project
Pranava Elite is registered with this Authority under Registration No. P02400001704,
comprising 15 residential units and 15 covered car parking spaces, situated on Plot Nos. 96 and
97. Separately, Pranava Residency is registered under Registration No. P02400001884,
12 of 14

---

In response, the Respondents have contended that they had entered into a development

agreement with the landowners to construct the two blocks, Block A and Block B as a single
integrated residential complex. It was submitted that the construction of both blocks was
undertaken simultaneously and that a common brochure was issued, containing specifications
and details of both blocks. The said brochure, submitted by the Respondents themselves, bears
the name “Pranava Tranquil” and was used for the purpose of marketing and sale of flats in
both the registered projects.
60.

Upon perusal of the brochure and materials on record, the Authority finds that the

Respondent Promoter has indeed marketed the two separately registered projects under the
unregistered name “Pranava Tranquil”. This is in clear derogation of the statutory mandate
under the RE(R&D) Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is imperative that a promoter
advertises and markets a real estate project only under the name registered with the Authority,
and no unregistered or altered name may be used to represent one or more registered projects as
a single consolidated entity unless duly permitted.
61.

In this regard, the Authority deems it appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section

11(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which reads as under:
“The advertisement or prospectus issued or published by the promoter shall mention
prominently the website address of the Authority, wherein all details of the registered
project have been entered and shall include the registration number obtained from
the Authority and such other matters incidental thereto.”

62.

The statutory intent is explicit, all promotional material and advertisements must reflect

the actual registered name of the project and include the correct registration number and
information issued by the Authority. The Promoter cannot misrepresent or rebrand the project in
a manner inconsistent with its official registration, as it misleads allottees and prospective
buyers.
64.

The Authority is of the considered view that the act of marketing and advertising the

two projects under the common name “Pranava Tranquil”, which is not the name provided
before this Authority while registering the project with the Authority, constitutes a violation of
Section 11(2) of the RE|(R&D) Act and consequently attracts penalty under Section 61 of the
RE(R&D) Act.
13 of 14

---

Accordingly, in view of the above findings, the Authority imposes a penalty of Rs.

7,68,400/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Sixty Eigh Thousand Four Hundred only) upon the Promoter
for violation of Section 11(2) read with Section 61 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, in respect of the project Pranava Elite (Reg. No. P02400001704).
F. Directions of the Authority
66.

In exercise of the powers conferred upon this Authority under Sections 37 and 38 of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the following directions are issued to
the Respondents:

a. For contravention of the provisions of Section 11(2) of the RE(R&D) Act, Respondent No.
1 is held liable under Section 61 thereof. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 is directed to pay a
penalty of Rs. 7,68,400/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Sixty Eigh Thousand Four Hundred only),
within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. The said penalty shall be
deposited in favour of the TGRERA Fund, either through a Demand Draft or by way of
online transfer to the AccountNo.: 50100595798191,Bank: HDFC Bank, IFSC Code:
HDFC0007036.
b. Respondent No. 1 shall rectify the issue of water seepage within thirty (30) days from the
date of this Order, in compliance with Section 14(3) of the RE(R&D) Act. No costs shall be
levied upon the allottees for such rectification.
c. Respondent No. 1 is directed to construct the toilets in the stilt floor strictly as per the
sanctioned plan, and any deviation therefrom is expressly prohibited.
d. Respondent No. 1 shall forthwith cease all forms of advertisement and promotion of the
project under any name other than the one registered with this Authority. Compliance with
Section 11(2) shall be strictly observed in all future marketing efforts.
67.

The parties shall bear their own costs. It is further made clear that failure to comply with
the directions contained in this Order shall attract the consequences stipulated under Section
63 of the RE(R&D) Act.

68.

In view of the above findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed of.

SdSri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdSri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdDr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA

14 of 14

---