Order Complaint No. 443 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Date: 30th March, 2026
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Complaint No. 443/2025/TG RERA

Uppuluri Sri Saradanvita
(R/o 1-11-242/30/323, Flat No. 323,
Pearl Apartments Shyamlal Buildings,
Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016.)
…Complainant
Versus
1. Hari Challa
2. Venkat Prasanna Challa.
(Office at M/s. Aliens Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Sy. No. 384, 385, Aliens Space Station,
Tellapur, RC Puram Mandal, Gachibowli,
Sangareddy District- 502032)
…Respondents
The present matter, filed by the Complainant, came up for hearing before this Authority
in the presence of the Complainant and Counsel for the Respondents Adv. Mulugu Mallikarjuna
and Adv. R N Hemanand. After hearing the submissions of both parties, this Authority now
proceeds to pass the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint have been filed by the Complainant under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation & 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”) seeking appropriate reliefs against the Respondents.
A. Brief Facts of the Case as per Form M submitted by the Complainant:
3.

It was submitted by the Complainant that on 01-06-2025, a booking was made for a

unit identified as Flat No. 522, Station No. 4, by making an initial payment of Rs. 50,000
Page 1 of 14

---

The Complainant averred that due to unforeseen personal and financial constraints, a

decision was taken to cancel the aforementioned booking. Pursuant to this decision, it was
stated that on 12-06-2025, the Complainant personally visited the office of the builder with the
intention of submitting a formal written request for cancellation. However, it was alleged that
the representatives of the builder blatantly refused to accept the said written cancellation
request in person.
5.

Consequently, the Complainant was constrained to transmit the cancellation request

letter via electronic mail, addressing it specifically to the customer care and sales team of the
builder. The Complainant submitted that despite making repeated follow-ups and placing
numerous telephone calls to the builder's representatives, there was absolutely no appropriate
response received from their end regarding the confirmation of the cancellation. Furthermore,
it was alleged that the builder had entirely failed to initiate the refund of the booking advance
paid by the Complainant, thereby causing undue financial hardship and grievance.
B. Relief(s) Sought
6.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following relief:
i.

Direct the respondents to return the total amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest
amount as per RERA norms.

C. Counter filed by the Respondents
7.

A Counter Affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondent company by its Authorized

Representative and Joint Managing Director, Sri Venkata Prasanna Challa, Son of CVR
Choudhary, aged about 46 years, residing in Hyderabad. The Deponent solemnly affirmed and
stated that the Registered Office of the Respondent company was located at Survey Nos. 384
and 385, Tellapur, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.
8.

Raising preliminary objections, it was submitted that the complaint was liable to be

dismissed in limine on multiple grounds. Primarily, it was contended that the Complainant had
failed to specify any particular section or rule of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016 (RERA) that the Respondent had allegedly violated. It was argued that this
Page 2 of 14

---

It was further objected that the complaint was not maintainable given the facts and

circumstances, as the Complainant had approached the Hon'ble Authority by suppressing and
withholding material facts. Specifically, it was alleged that the Complainant had intentionally
concealed the complete Customer Information Sheet, which had been provided by the
Respondent at the time of booking. It was submitted that this document clearly delineated all
applicable terms and conditions. The Respondent asserted that the application lacked any valid
cause of action, was misconceived, and was based on incorrect facts.
10.

The Respondent completely denied the allegations outlined in the complaint, stating

that they were entirely false, lacked any factual support, and appeared to have been fabricated
solely to harass the Respondent company. The Complainant was put to strict proof of these
claims, and the Respondent denied all allegations except those that were specifically and
expressly admitted in the counter affidavit.
11.

Detailing the factual background of the transaction, it was submitted that the

Complainant had approached the Respondent on May 31, 2025, to inspect the project and had
personally visited the site. It was stated that after verifying the title and project details, and
based on personal preference, the Complainant requested the allocation of Flat No. 522 on the
5th floor, Station 04. The said flat was subsequently booked on May 31, 2025, upon the
payment of Rs. 2,50,000 (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Only). The Deponent highlighted
that the Respondent was a reputable construction company established by visionary developers,
designed by top global consultants, and constructed to high standards, and that it held a valid
RERA Registration.
12.

It was respectfully submitted that despite the project's valid registration and standing,

the Complainant issued a letter dated June 12, 2025, requesting the withdrawal and cancellation
of the booking of the subject flat without providing any justification. The reasons for this action
remained unknown to the Respondent. It was alleged that the Complainant aimed to extort
money from the Respondent by lodging this unsubstantiated complaint before the Authority,
an action which caused harm not only to the Respondent but also to other prospective buyers.

Page 3 of 14

---

Addressing the issue of the refund and forfeiture, the Respondent relied upon the

jurisprudence established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Maula Bux
Vs. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCR 928, and Godrej Projects Development Limited Vs. Anil
Karlekar and Ors, MANU/SC/0138/2025. It was submitted that the Apex Court had held that
if the forfeiture of earnest money under a contract was reasonable, it did not fall within Section
74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as such a forfeiture did not amount to imposing a penalty.
However, if the forfeiture was in the nature of a penalty, then Section 74 would be applicable.
The Court had further held that under the terms of a contract, if the party in breach undertook
to pay or forfeit a sum of money already paid to the party complaining of the breach, the
undertaking was in the nature of a penalty.
14.

Based on this prevailing legal position regarding forfeiture, it was respectfully

submitted that the Respondent, acting in good faith and without prejudice to its rights, had
agreed to refund a sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the Complainant. It was
pointed out that under clause (h) of the terms and conditions set out in the Respondent's
Customer Information Sheet, which was duly accepted and signed by the Complainant at the
time of booking, it was stipulated that 20 percent of the amount paid, or Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees
Two Lakhs only), whichever was higher, shall be liable for deduction from the total amount
paid. In pursuance of these agreed terms and to resolve the matter amicably, the Respondent
remitted the balance amount of Rs. 50,000 to the Complainant on August 31, 2025. It was
argued that this action demonstrated the Respondent's bona fide commitment to addressing the
issue fairly and transparently.
15.

Having regard to the aforementioned remittance, it was submitted that the Complainant

had no remaining claim against the Respondent, and therefore, the current claim lacked merit
and deserved to be dismissed in its entirety.
16.

The Respondent further emphasized the statutory framework, noting that the Authority

possessed the power to order a refund in cases involving violations of Sections 7, 11(5), 12,
14, 18, or 19 of the RERA Act. However, it was highlighted that the Complainant did not claim
that any of these specific provisions had been violated. It was placed on record that the
Respondent had not collected any funds through false or misleading advertisements, there had
been no modification to the sanctioned plans of the project that could harm the Complainant,
and there was no delay in handing over possession. Since none of the cited provisions were
violated, and the Complainant had voluntarily requested to cancel the booking for personal
Page 4 of 14

---

In conclusion, it was submitted that the Complainants had no ongoing claims against

the Respondent and held no right, title, or interest in any unit within the subject project. Having
voluntarily requested cancellation and withdrawal, and having signed the Customer
Information Sheet agreeing to forfeit 20 percent of the paid amount or Rs. 2,00,000 (whichever
was higher), the Complainants had relinquished all rights related to the project. It was argued
that they could not claim benefits beyond what was explicitly provided in the agreed document.
Therefore, the complaint was entirely untenable and was liable to be dismissed at the outset for
lack of locus standi, as it was well-established that a party who did not hold any current and
existing interest in a real estate project lacked the standing to maintain a complaint under the
RERA Act.
18.

In view of the detailed submissions, it was most respectfully prayed that the complaint,

being devoid of merit, misconceived, and unsupported by any violation of the RERA Act, be
dismissed in limine. It was reiterated that the Complainant had voluntarily cancelled the
booking, thereby relinquishing all rights in the project, and the Respondent had already
refunded the admissible amount. As no provision of RERA was violated and no valid cause of
action survived, it was prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to dismiss the present
complaint with exemplary costs and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant
19.

A Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the Complainant, wherein all the averments made

by the Respondent in the Counter Affidavit were categorically denied, save and except those
that were specifically admitted therein, and the Respondent was put to strict proof of the same.
It was respectfully submitted that the averments made in the Counter were not maintainable
either in law or on facts.
20.

It was submitted that the Respondent exhibited fraudulent conduct by not providing the

complete application form, termed as the Customer Information Sheet in the Respondent's
parlance, at the time of booking the flat. It was contended that under Section 12 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, a promoter is liable for any loss or damage
Page 5 of 14

---

Furthermore, regarding the date of booking, the Complainant submitted that the basic

document (page 23 of the complaint) provided the date of booking as 01-06-2025, which was
true and correct as the Complainant visited the Respondent's office and paid an advance amount
of Rs. 50,000 on that date. Surprisingly, page 8 of Annexure-A submitted by the Respondent
showed the date of booking as 31-05-2025, which was vehemently denied as totally wrong and
unacceptable. It was stated that the Complainant never visited the Respondent's office or site
on 31-05-2025, further evidencing the fabrication of documents. It was also highlighted that
the Customer Information Sheet marked as page 7 in Annexure-A did not match page 13 of the
same annexure, further proving the deceitful inclusion of documents.
22.

The Complainant averred that the objects and reasons of the Telangana Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which aimed to ensure accountability, protect
allottees' interests, infuse transparency, ensure fair play, and reduce frauds, were totally
defeated by the wrongful acts of the Respondent. Invoking Section 18 of the RERA Act, the
Complainant claimed eligibility for a full refund of the amount paid on account of cancellation,
with interest, alongside damages for harassment and mental torture suffered by the young
Complainant and her elderly father, who was forced to roam from pillar to post. The complaint
was stated to be validly admitted under Section 31 of the Act and Rules 34 and 35 of the
Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.
23.

It was submitted that no material facts were withheld by the Complainant. It was

detailed that the Complainant's father, Mr. Uppuluri Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy, had signed
the initial application form based on the advice and instructions of the Respondent's office.
Page 6 of 14

---

The averments of the Respondent were denied in total. The Complainant submitted that

true facts and documents had been presented before the Hon'ble TGRERA, whereas the
Respondent had relied upon the fabricated Annexure-A.
25.

The Complainant denied approaching the Respondent on 31-05-2025. The Complainant

maintained that the approach was made on 01-06-2025, on which date Flat 522 on the 5th floor,
station 4, was booked with a payment of Rs. 50,000 into the Escrow account (Name: ADPL SS 91-12 Mas Coll. Escrow A/c, A/c No: 57500001346210, IFSC Code: HDFC 0002073,
Branch: Serilingampally). A subsequent payment of Rs. 2,00,000 was made on 07-06-2025.
The claim of paying Rs. 2,50,000 on 31-05-2025 was denied as false. The Respondent's claim
of being a reputable construction company was also contested, citing negative ratings and
reviews on YouTube and print media.
26.

The allegations regarding the cancellation were totally denied. It was submitted that a

cancellation letter was given within a short period of 12 days (on 12-06-2025) for valid reasons
without causing any damage or defamation to the Respondent. It was stated that the Respondent
refunded Rs. 50,000 on 01-09-2025 after the Complainant approached TGRERA, which
impliedly meant the Respondent had accepted the cancellation. It was alleged that the
Respondent was now attempting to avoid the payment of the balance Rs. 2,00,000 through
fabricated documents, as evidenced by an email dated 01-09-2025 from the Respondent (Aliens
Group) addressed to the Complainant. This fact of the partial refund was acknowledged by the
Authority on 03-09-2025, wherein the Complainant prayed for a direction to refund the balance
Rs. 2,00,000 with interest.
Page 7 of 14

---

It was submitted that the citations relied upon by the Respondent, including the

Supreme Court decision in Godrej Projects Limited Vs Anil Karlekar and Ors (Civil Appeal
No. 3334 of 2023), Satish Batra Vs Sudhir Rawal, Desh Raj, and Pioneer Urban Land and
Infrastructure Limited, were inapplicable. It was distinguished that in the present case, there
was no signed agreement, no concept of an occupation certificate, and no possession involved.
Furthermore, relying on the Respondent's own Annexure-C (page 30, paragraph 31)
referencing the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which defined an unfair contract under Section
46(vi) as imposing an unreasonable charge or condition putting the consumer at a disadvantage,
the Complainant argued that adding pages 12, 13, and 14 constituted an unfair trade practice
under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
28.

It was submitted that the Respondent possessed no right of forfeiture. The claim relying

on Clause H of the Customer Information Sheet was not acceptable as it was never shown to
or signed by the Complainant. The Complainant reiterated the eligibility for a full refund of the
balance Rs. 2,00,000 in addition to interest at a minimum rate of 18 percent per annum, or as
decided by the Hon'ble Authority.
29.

The Complainant submitted that having regard to the preceding submissions, there was

complete merit and a balance of justice in favour of the Complainant to claim the balance
amount plus interest, and the Respondent's claims ought to be rejected in total due to cheating
and unfair trade practices.
30.

The Complainant distinguished the citation of Sachin Patil Vs Manish Khandelwal

provided by the Respondent. It was pointed out that in the cited case, there was an existing
agreement and the booking amount was refunded except for 5 percent GST. In the present
matter, there was no agreement between the parties except for the Customer Information Sheet,
and thus the citation lost its merit for consideration by the Respondent and actually favored the
Complainant.
31.

The Complainant addressed the Respondent's claim that the Complainant signed and

accepted the forfeiture of 20 percent or Rs. 2,00,000. It was reiterated that page 12 in AnnexureA was not signed by the Complainant, a fact verifiable by the naked eye. Consequently, it was
submitted that all such evidence presented by the Respondent were wrongful claims that
deserved to be dismissed.

Page 8 of 14

---

A Reply to the Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the Respondent company by its

authorized representative and Joint Managing Director, Sri Venkat Prasanna Challa. The
Deponent solemnly affirmed that he resided in Hyderabad and that the registered office of the
Respondent company was located at Survey Nos. 384 and 385, Tellapur, Gachibowli,
Hyderabad. It was placed on record that the description and address of the Respondent for the
service of notice, process, and summons, as well as that of their counsel, Sri M. Ashwin Reddy,
was Plot No. 40, C-Lane No. 12, MLA Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana.
33.

It was respectfully submitted that the Reply was filed in response to the Rejoinder of

the Complainant, aiming to support the case previously outlined in the Respondent's Counter
Affidavit. For the sake of clarity and formality, it was stated that all averments made by the
Respondent in the Counter were deemed to be reiterated, while all statements contained in the
complaint and other subsequent pleadings filed by the Complainant were vehemently denied.
34.

Detailing the factual background relevant to the adjudication of the complaint, it was

submitted that the Complainant had personally inspected the project and visited the site. Upon
verification of the title and project details, and based on personal preference, the parties entered
into a booking agreement on May 31, 2025, initiated with a booking amount of Rs. 50,000.
The Complainant ultimately purchased Flat No. 552 on the 5th Floor, Station 4, of the subject
project and paid a total sum of Rs. 2,50,000 towards this purchase. However, it was noted that
on June 12, 2025, the Complainant abruptly requested the Respondent to cancel the booking.
35.

Elaborating on the booking procedure, the Respondent submitted that upon receiving a

booking request, the standard process involved the issuance of a booking form known as the
Customer Information Sheet (CIS). This document was described as a booklet comprising a
total of 10 pages (front and back), containing detailed columns for capturing all relevant
information about the customer, the purchased flat, and the specific terms and conditions of the
booking.
36.

The Respondent invoked the well-established legal doctrine of caveat emptor (let the

buyer beware). It was argued that under this doctrine, the onus was squarely on the purchaser
to exercise due diligence, seek necessary clarifications, and ensure they were fully informed
about all material aspects of the transaction, including the specifications and the terms of sale.
The Respondent contended that the Complainant neglected to make the requisite inquiries or
verify the contractual provisions prior to proceeding with the booking. It was averred that the
Page 9 of 14

---

Addressing the allegations of documentary manipulation, the Respondent formally and

categorically denied the unsubstantiated claim that additional pages had been inserted or
fabricated into the original Customer Information Sheet. The Respondent affirmed that no such
alteration or addition had ever taken place, stating that the original CIS was accurately
maintained in their records.
38.

Regarding the financial dispute, it was submitted that at the time of executing and

signing the CIS, the Complainant expressly agreed to be bound by its terms. According to the
stipulations within the CIS, in the event a customer voluntarily chose to withdraw from the
project, they were entitled only to a refund of the remaining balance after the forfeiture of either
Rs. 2,00,000 or 10 percent of the flat's total cost, whichever was higher. In strict accordance
with these agreed conditions, the Respondent lawfully forfeited Rs. 2,00,000 and refunded the
remaining amount of Rs. 50,000 through an online transaction. It was emphasized that this
forfeiture was duly acknowledged and accepted by the Complainant at the time of booking. To
substantiate the legal enforceability of such contractual forfeiture clauses, the Respondent
relied upon the judgment delivered in Mahendra Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs. Karnataka Real Estate
Regulatory Authority & Saurabh Sharma (Appeal No. (K-REAT) 46/2023, dated December 3,
2024).
39.

The Respondent further advanced several statutory grounds for the dismissal of the

complaint. It was argued that under Section 31(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), a complaint could only be maintained if a specific provision
of the Act or its rules had been violated or contravened. It was asserted that the Respondent
had committed no such violation. The Respondent highlighted that RERA conferred the
authority to issue refunds solely in instances involving violations of Sections 12, 14, and 18 of
the RE (R&D) Act, 2016. Since the Complainant neither alleged nor demonstrated any breach

Page 10 of 14

---

It was further submitted that the complaint had been rendered moot and infructuous.

Since the Complainant had voluntarily entered into the booking agreement and explicitly
agreed to the terms of the signed CIS, the legal principle of estoppel prevented the Complainant
from withdrawing from those terms to claim the entire booking amount. As the Respondent
had already completed the admissible refund with adequate proof of encashment presented, it
was argued that the Respondent had fully complied with its obligations.
41.

In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it was submitted that the

Complainant possessed no outstanding claims against the Respondent, held no right, title, or
interest in any unit of the project, and entirely lacked the standing to maintain the complaint. It
was most respectfully prayed that the complaint, being devoid of merit, misconceived, and
unsupported by any violation of the RERA Act, be dismissed in limine. It was reiterated that
the Complainant had voluntarily cancelled the booking, relinquished all rights in the project,
and received the admissible refund. As no valid cause of action survived, the Respondent
prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to dismiss the present complaint as not maintainable,
with exemplary costs awarded in the interest of justice.
F. Point(s) for Consideration
42.

After considering submissions made by both parties, the following question arises

before this Authority:
I.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought? If so, to what extent?

G. Observations of the Authority
43.

The central controversy in the present complaint revolves around the validity and

enforceability of Clause H of the Customer Information Sheet (CIS) relied upon by the
Respondents to justify the retention of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of the total booking amount of Rs.
2,50,000/- paid by the Complainant. Before examining the Complainant's entitlement to relief,
this Authority finds it necessary to examine the nature, character, and binding force of the said
document and the clause sought to be enforced thereunder.
44.

Upon a careful examination of the Customer Information Sheet placed on record by the

Respondents, this Authority observes a fundamental and fatal infirmity in the said document.
Page 11 of 14

---

A contractual stipulation of such significant financial consequence, imposing a

substantial forfeiture upon a homebuyer, can only be binding if it is expressly agreed to and
acknowledged by both parties through their signatures on the document containing such a
condition. The requirement of a signature is not a mere formality; it is the legal manifestation
of a party's free, informed, and voluntary consent to be bound by the terms contained therein.
In the absence of signatures of either party on the page containing the terms and conditions, it
cannot be said that the Complainant was ever made aware of, understood, or consciously
consented to the forfeiture clause sought to be enforced against her. The Respondents cannot
seek to enforce a clause that was neither brought to the express attention of the Complainant
nor acknowledged and accepted by her in writing. The reliance placed upon Clause H to justify
the retention of Rs. 2,00,000/- is therefore wholly unsustainable and cannot be countenanced
by this Authority.
46.

Even proceeding further and assuming for the sake of argument that the page containing

Clause H were to be treated as duly signed and binding, this Authority finds that the clause
fails the test of fairness and reasonableness on multiple independent grounds. The only
document in the entire transaction is a pre-printed Customer Information Sheet prepared
unilaterally by the Respondents. The parties never reached the stage of executing a formal
Agreement for Sale, and the transaction was cancelled at the very inception, within a period of
merely 12 days of the initial payment. In such circumstances, the pre-printed CIS containing
terms prepared exclusively by the Respondents, without any negotiation, discussion, or
meaningful participation by the Complainant, cannot be treated as a concluded and enforceable
contract governing the rights and liabilities of the parties.
47.

Clause H of the CIS, as sought to be enforced by the Respondents, operates to forfeit

Rs. 2,00,000/- upon a voluntary cancellation, irrespective of the stage of the transaction, the
period elapsed since booking, or any loss or damage actually suffered by the Respondents. In
the present case, the cancellation was sought within 12 days of the initial payment, long before
any Agreement for Sale was executed. The Respondents have not placed on record any material
to demonstrate that they suffered any actual loss or damage on account of the Complainant's
Page 12 of 14

---

The Respondents have further contended that the complaint is not maintainable before

this Authority as no specific provision of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016 has been violated. This
Authority does not accept this contention. The RE (R&D) Act, 2016 is a beneficial and
consumer-centric legislation enacted for the express purpose of protecting the interests of
homebuyers and ensuring fair play, transparency, and accountability in the real estate sector.
49.

The objects and purposes of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016 cannot be reduced to a narrow,

provision-specific inquiry that shuts out the broad remedial jurisdiction of this Authority in
cases of manifest unfairness and inequity. This Authority is duty-bound to intervene and protect
a homebuyer from the unconscionable enforcement of a unilaterally imposed and unsigned
forfeiture clause at the pre-agreement stage. To hold otherwise would be to countenance a
situation where promoters may freely collect booking amounts from homebuyers and retain
them in full upon cancellation by invoking one-sided pre-printed terms, which would strike at
the very foundation of the consumer-protective regime established under the RE (R&D) Act,
2016.
50.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that Clause H of the Customer Information Sheet is

not binding upon the Complainant, being contained on a page unsigned by either party,
unilaterally prepared by the Respondents, devoid of any nexus to actual loss, and contrary to
the spirit and object of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016. The Respondents are not entitled to forfeit
any portion of the booking amount paid by the Complainant by invoking the said clause.
51.

Having so held, this Authority now proceeds to examine the Complainant's entitlement

to relief. It is an admitted position that the Complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 2,50,000/towards the booking of Flat No. 522, Station No. 4, in the project "Aliens Space Station." It is
also on record that the Respondents refunded Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant on 31-08-2025,
after the filing of the present complaint before this Authority, retaining the balance of Rs.
2,00,000/- under the purported authority of Clause H. The said retention being without legal
basis, the Complainant is entitled to refund of the balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Page 13 of 14

---

With regard to the claim for compensation for mental harassment and agony, this

Authority observes that claims of compensation in the nature of damages fall within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer appointed under Section 71 of the RE (R&D)
Act, 2016. The Complainant is therefore at liberty to approach the Adjudicating Officer for
adjudication of such claims, if so advised.
H. Directions of the Authority
53.

In light of the discussions and findings made hereinabove, this Authority, vide its

powers under Sections 37 and 38, issues the following directions to the Respondents:
i.

The Respondents are directed to refund the balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakhs Only) to the Complainant within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date
of receipt of this Order.

ii.

Failing to comply with the above directions shall attract penal action in accordance with
Section 63 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016.

54.

In view of the above, the present complaint is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson,
TG RERA

Page 14 of 14

---