Order Complaint No. 277 of 2022

BEFORE THE
TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
HYDERABAD
COMPLAINT NO.277/2022/TSRERA
Date of decision: 28.09.2023
Sri N.Prasad Raju
Sri P Gopala Krishnam Raju
….Complainant
Versus
Beeram Ranga Reddy

….Respondents

Quorum:

Dr.N.Satyanarayana, Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri. K. Srinivas Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

Appearance:

Complainant: None appeared on behalf of Complainant
Respondent: Present in person
ORDER

The present complaint has been filed under section 31 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Act”) read with rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) for violation
and contravention of the provisions of the Act of 2016 or the Rules and
Regulations made there under. The Act prescribes that the Promoter shall
fulfil all obligations, responsibilities, and functions towards the allottee as per
the agreed terms.
A. Facts of the case as stated in the complaint filed by the Complainant:
2.

The complainants, N. Prasad Raju and Gopala Krishnam Raju, have

brought forth a series of grievances related to the "Golden Oriole" project
situated at Kousalya Colony, Bachupally, Hyderabad. These grievances
include deviations from approved design, missing amenities, and various
other issues.
3.

The complainants have noted the following specific issues:
1 of 5

I.

Clubhouse completion with equipment and furniture has not been
done, despite a significant delay.

II.

Several promised amenities, such as a Function Hall, Supermarket,
Library, Clinic room, medical store, and association office spaces, have
not been handed over even after maintenance has been initiated.

III.

Changes in the design and location of amenities like the Shuttle court,
Cricket nets, and Skating Rink.

IV.

Use of substandard materials throughout the project.

V.

Non-provision of Rainwater harvesting pits.

VI.

Significant changes to the swimming pool and play area that do not
align with the originally promised design.

VII.

Delay in initiating Manjeera Water Supply.

VIII.

Non-provision of the specified 0.5 KW Generator backup.

IX.

Pending installation of CCTV cameras on front doors and Intercom
facility.

X.

Plumbing seepages and incomplete painting work across the project.

XI.

Discrepancies in the amount collected for maintenance and the
maintenance services provided.

4.

The complainants express their disappointment with the builder's

failure to deliver the promised amenities and services within the agreed
timelines.

They

announcement

also
without

raise

concerns

obtaining

the

about

the

necessary

builder's

occupancy

NOC

Objection

(No

Certificate) from the relevant authorities.
B. Reply by the Respondent:
5.

In

response

to

the

complaint,

M/s

Vishnukrupa

Developers,

represented by Mr. B. Ranga Reddy and others, submitted the following
points:
I.

The respondent obtained the necessary technical permission from
HMDA for the construction of the project and duly completed the
construction according to the sanctioned plan and specifications. An
Occupancy Certificate was also obtained, indicating compliance with all
requirements.

2 of 5

II.

The respondent asserts that the complainants' grievances are not
representative of all flat owners, as only two individuals have raised
these concerns out of a total of 252 units.

III.

The respondent contends that the complaints regarding missing
amenities, such as the clubhouse, were addressed, and these facilities
were provided as per the agreement.

IV.

The respondent clarifies that Manjeera water provisions are subject to
availability and that ground water through bore-wells is being utilized,
as Manjeera water is not yet available in the locality.

V.

The respondent claims that extra works were provided at the request of
the flat owners' association and that all specifications were met.

VI.

The respondent highlights the satisfaction letter from the association,
which acknowledges the completion of amenities and the absence of
pending works.

C. Rejoinder filed by the Complainants:
6.

The complainants provided further responses and remarks regarding

the respondent's reply:
I.

They note that the Occupancy Certificate was issued recently after the
complaint was submitted, and they raise questions about the inspection
process that did not catch certain issues.

II.

The complainants point out that water softeners mentioned in the
agreement were not provided, leading to the flat owners pooling funds to
address the issue.

III.

Concerns are raised about the denial of Manjeera water supply, despite
its availability to adjacent projects.

IV.

The complainants dispute the claim that all other flat owners are
satisfied, attaching a document with names and signatures of those
dissatisfied.

V.

Several promised amenities, including Intercom and a skating ring,
have not been provided as per the documents.

VI.

The complainants raise issues related to the use of the clubhouse
space,

builder meetings, and structural

changes made

without

consultation.
3 of 5

VII.

They mention that one of the complainants chose to sell their flat due to
unresolved issues.

VIII.

The complainants request that appropriate remedies be considered for
the flat owners' plights.

D. Hearing Conducted on 19.09.2023:
7.

During the hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the complainant,

while the respondent was present in person. Summons dated 15.09.2023
were issued, and the respondent submitted the following points before the
Authority:
I.

The respondent reiterated the issuance of technical permission and the
occupancy certificate, highlighting that all construction was completed
as per the sanctioned plan and specifications.

II.

They emphasized that the complaints stem from only two individual
purchasers, out of a total of 252 units, and asserted that none of the
other purchasers have raised issues with the construction or amenities.

III.

The respondent pointed out that the Golden Oriole Flat Owners
Mutually aided cooperative Maintenance Society Ltd. had issued a
satisfaction letter confirming the provision of all agreed specifications
and additional facilities.

IV.

They maintained that there are no pending works and that the
occupancy certificate and satisfaction letter confirm the satisfaction of
all flat owners regarding the quality of construction.

E. Directions of the Authority:
8.

In light of the above, the authority, after careful consideration of the

arguments and documents presented, hereby issues the following order:
I.

The complainants have raised valid concerns about deviations from the
agreed specifications and the delayed provision of certain amenities in
the "Golden Oriole" project.

II.

The respondent has provided evidence of obtaining necessary technical
approvals and an Occupancy Certificate, indicating compliance with
construction standards and specifications.

III.

The respondent has presented a satisfaction letter from the Golden
Oriole Flat Owners Mutually aided cooperative Maintenance Society
4 of 5

Ltd., which confirms the provision of agreed specifications and
additional facilities.
IV.

It is evident that there are differing perspectives on the completion and
quality of amenities provided in the project. While the respondent has
presented evidence of compliance with technical requirements and the
satisfaction of some flat owners, the complainants have raised specific
concerns about the fulfilment of promises made in the project brochure
and the delayed provision of certain amenities. But this authority notes
that the majority of flat owners are satisfied with the construction and
amenities provided. The issuance of occupancy certificates by the
relevant authorities suggests compliance with approved plans.

V.

In view of the Satisfaction letter submitted by the Golden Oriole Flat
Owners Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd. on 24th March 2023,
expressing their contentment with the construction and amenities
provided, this present complaint is dismissed.

9.

If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach the TS Real Estate

Appellate Tribunal (vide G.O Ms.no.8, dt 11.01.2018, the Telanagana State
Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal has been designated as TS Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal to manage the affairs under the Act till the regular
Tribunal is established) within 60 days from the receipt of this Order.

Sd/Sri. K. Srinivas Rao, Hon’ble Member
TS RERA
Sd/Sri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
TS RERA
Sd/Dr.N.Satyanarayana, Hon’ble Chairperson
TS RERA
5 of 5