Order Complaint No. 46 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 46 of 2024
21stDay of January, 2025
Corum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Vineesh Kumar Thati
…Complainants
Versus
Goli Shravan Kumar
M/s Bridge Constructions

…Respondents

The present complaint, filed by the Complainant, was listed for final
hearing before this Authority on 18th September 2024. The Complainant
appeared in person and presented their submissions during the hearing..
Respondent 1 despite being duly served with notice, failed to appear on any
schedule hearing dates, given his absence, the Authority proceeds to decide
the matter exparte with respect to Respondent 1 and whereas Respondent 2
appeared through his counsel Sri M. Srinivas. After examining the relevant
submissions by all the parties, this Authority proceeds to pass the following
order.
2. The 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"). The
Complainant is seeking appropriate directions from this Authority against
the Respondent for failure to deliver possession of the residential flat
purchased in the Respondent's project.
A. Brief facts on behalf of the complainant:
3. The complainant respectfully submits that upon initial inquiry, SVC
Ventures, now known as Bridge Group, assured them that possession of the
1 of 10

apartment would be delivered within 18 months. Relying on this assurance,
and to avoid the continued inconvenience of renting, the complainant
decided to purchase an apartment and booked a flat on March 4, 2020,
making an advance payment of ₹16,67,600, which constituted more than
20% of the total sale consideration.
4. The complainant further submits that, subsequently, it was discovered
that the booked apartment fell within the owner’s share a fact that was not
disclosed initially. Upon learning of this issue, the complainant raised
concerns, prompting the owner to offer the apartment for sale. Despite this,
the complainant alleges that the promoter continually delayed the execution
of the sale agreement, which was ultimately finalized on November 19, 2020.
According to this agreement, possession was to be handed over within 30
months from the date of execution, including a 6-month grace period.
However, the complainant submits that they were verbally assured of
possession within 24 months.
5. It is further submitted that the promoter indicated March 2022 as the
possession date, following which the complainant, having paid the full sale
consideration, proceeded with the sale deed’s execution on September 1,
2021, at the Sub-Registrar’s office in Kavadiguda, Secundrabad. However,
during the registration, the vendor allegedly committed to delivering
possession within an additional six months. As of the date of this complaint,
possession has not been granted, and neither the Completion Certificate nor
the Occupancy Certificate has been obtained.
6. The complainant submits that they have made a total payment of
₹83,69,549, detailed as follows:
a. ₹74,71,875 to Shravan Goli (Vendor) for the saleable area at a rate of
₹4200 per square foot, which includes one covered car parking.
b. ₹8,97,674 to SVC Ventures (Promoter) for amenities, including the
applicable GST.

2 of 10

7. Despite these substantial payments, the complainant contends that the
apartment remains incomplete, with essential works such as ceiling
plastering, acrylic emulsion painting, installation of the storeroom door, and
replacement of broken tiles yet to be completed. The complainant further
submits that discrepancies in area measurements were observed, including
the inclusion of the utility balcony within the carpet area and overcharges
for certain areas. Additionally, deviations in the quality of flooring materials
from those specified in the agreement were noted, further underscoring the
complainant’s grievances regarding the promoter’s non-compliance with the
agreed terms.
B. Relief sought:
a. Vendor/Promoter has to pay compensation interest as per RE(R&D)
Rules from March 2022, for every month delayed until handing over
possession of the apartment with complete specifications and
amenities in place, along with covered car parking.
b. Ceiling plastering with acrylic emulsion paint needs to be done as per
the requirements mentioned in the specifications.
c. Store room door needs to be fitted as per the plan.
d. Cantilevered balcony and utility balcony measurements are not as per
the carpet area statement. Need to refund the amount for extra
charged SFT on sealable area.
C. Counter filed by respondent no. 2
8. Respondent No. 2, M/s Bridge Constructions Private Limited, respectfully
denies all allegations against it and puts the complainant to strict proof
thereof.
9. It is submitted that the construction of Flat No. 1005, along with all
promised amenities, was completed as per the original understanding with
the complainant. The construction adhered to the agreed standards
regarding area, materials, quality, and other specified aspects. Respondent

3 of 10

No. 2 further asserts that no extra charges were levied on the complainant,
negating any grounds for a refund.
10. The allegations concerning delayed completion are denied. The delay was
solely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a period which RERA authorities
condoned through their order dated 01.06.2021.
11. It is submitted that there are no deviations in the construction of the
specified flat, which remains in perfect condition as promised by the
promoter/builder.
12. The Respondent has completed construction for other flats in the
complex and handed them over to their respective purchasers. Respondent
No. 2 is fully prepared to hand over possession of the flat to the
complainant, who has, however, refrained from taking possession and
instead has raised baseless allegations with mala fide intent against the
promoter/builder.
13. Respondent No. 2 finally prays that the Hon’ble Authority dismiss the
complaint, asserting that the allegations lack merit and are unfounded.
D. Rejoinder by the complainant:
14.

In his rejoinder, the complainant reiterates his grievances regarding

the construction and handover of his Flat No. 1005 in the Bridge Paramount
project. The complainant avers that the flat has not been constructed per
the specifications provided in the Agreement of Sale, citing that internal
plastering and ceiling plastering remain incomplete, the storeroom door has
not been installed, and the dimensions of both the utility and cantilevered
balconies deviate from the approved plan.
15.

The Agreement of Sale, executed on 19-11-2020, post-lockdown, does

not account for any delay or failure in the project’s progress due to “Force
Majeure” conditions, and the complainant asserts that the developer did not
extend any payment deadlines. Instead, the complainant contends that he
was subjected to repeated calls, emails, and undue pressure to make timely
4 of 10

payments under threat of booking cancellation, despite having fulfilled the
payment obligations as outlined in the agreement.
16.

The complainant further alleges that construction of the 12th floor

slab was completed by May-June 2021, and despite multiple reminders, the
developer delayed the sale deed registration until 01-9-2021. The developer
had committed to hand over possession by March 2022, a timeline
unaffected by the Covid-19 pandemic, yet possession remains undelivered.
The Agreement stipulates a possession deadline of 30 months from
execution, including a six-month grace period, with a provision that, failing
timely possession, the developer would pay interest within 90 days of it
becoming due. However, the complainant maintains that no such interest
has been paid, despite the delay.
17. Moreover, the complainant raises concerns regarding the discrepancies
in the balcony measurements, stating that the carpet area falls short of the
agreed dimensions, with a balcony width of 4.3 feet against the promised 5
feet, and a utility balcony width of less than 4 feet, impacting a total of four
balconies for which he had paid 234 square feet. The complainant submits
that, as per the terms, if there is a reduction in carpet area, compensation is
due.
18. The complainant has requested a technical assessment by RERA
officials to verify the carpet area of the balconies and assess the status of
unfinished ceiling plastering. At the time of filing the complaint, the flat was
not ready for possession, as the Occupancy Certificate had not been
obtained, nor had essential services like LPG connections, water, sanitation,
electricity,

and

other

amenities

been

installed.

Furthermore,

the

complainant contends that the developer has refused to complete the ceiling
plastering, painting, and installation of the storeroom door in his flat.
19. Asserting that these actions constitute a violation of Sections 12, 14,
and 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the
complainant claims that the project delays and failure to deliver possession
as agreed amount to non-compliance with the statutory obligations under
5 of 10

RERA. In response to the counter filed by Bridge Constructions, the
complainant refutes claims that his complaint is baseless and asserts that
all evidence supporting his grievances has been duly submitted.
20. The complainant prays for a decree awarding interest for compensation
for each month of delay until the realization of the suit and possession of
the flat, in the interest of justice.
F. Observation by the authority:
25. Respondent 1 absent, despite the notices were served to the Respondent
and for the same acknowledgment submitted by the Complainant. Hence,
respondent 1 has been set ex-parte. Upon a thorough analysis of the
documents and arguments presented, the following observations are made:
26. The Complainant booked Flat No. 1005 on March 4, 2020, with the then
SVC Ventures, now known as Bridge Group, and paid an advance of
₹16,67,600, constituting over 20% of the total sale consideration. It is
claimed that the Respondents assured delivery of possession within 18
months to alleviate the Complainant's burden of paying rent. However, it
was later discovered that the flat was part of the owner's share, a fact not
initially disclosed. This led to delays in executing the sale agreement, which
was eventually signed on November 19, 2020.
27. The Agreement of Sale stipulated that possession would be handed over
within 30 months from the date of execution, including a six-month grace
period, effectively setting the deadline at May 19, 2023. The Complainant,
however, asserts that there were verbal assurances of delivering possession
within 24 months, specifically by March 2022. Relying on these assurances,
the Complainant proceeded to make full payment, totaling₹83,69,549, and
executed the sale deed on September 1, 2021.
28. The Complainant alleges that despite full payment, possession has not
been granted, and the flat remains incomplete with several pending works,
such as ceiling plastering with acrylic emulsion paint, installation of the
6 of 10

storeroom door, and replacement of broken tiles. Additionally, there are
discrepancies in the measurements of the balconies, with the actual carpet
area being less than what was agreed upon, leading to an overcharge for 55
square feet.
29. In response, Respondent No. 2 denies all allegations, stating that the
construction of the flat, along with all promised amenities, has been
completed as per the original understanding. They assert that the
construction adhered to the agreed standards regarding area, materials, and
quality, and no extra charges were levied. The delay in possession is
attributed solely to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is considered a force
majeure event, and extensions were granted by RERA authorities through
an order dated June 1, 2021. They express readiness to hand over
possession and claim that the Complainant has refrained from taking
possession, instead raising baseless allegations with mala fide intent.
30. The Complainant, in his rejoinder, refutes the claims made by
Respondent No. 2. He emphasizes that the Agreement of Sale was executed
post-lockdown and does not account for any delays due to force majeure
conditions. He also highlights that the developer did not extend any
payment deadlines and exerted undue pressure to make timely payments
under threat of cancellation. The Complainant points out that the 12th floor
slab was completed by May-June 2021, and despite multiple reminders, the
developer delayed the sale deed registration until September 1, 2021. He
maintains that the developer committed to handing over possession by
March 2022, a timeline that was unaffected by the pandemic.
31. Furthermore, the Complainant raises concerns about the discrepancies
in the balcony measurements. He states that he paid for a total balcony area
of 234 square feet, but the actual carpet area provided is only 179 square
feet, resulting in an overcharge for 55 square feet. According to the terms of
the agreement, any reduction in the carpet area should entitle the allottee to
a refund of the excess amount paid. The Complainant also asserts that
essential services and amenities, such as LPG connections, water,
7 of 10

sanitation, electricity, and the Occupancy Certificate, have not been
provided, rendering the flat unfit for possession.
32. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, it
is observed that the Agreement of Sale explicitly stipulates a possession
deadline of 30 months from the date of execution, including a six-month
grace period. This contractual deadline has not yet lapsed, and as such, the
Respondents cannot be held in default for failing to deliver possession
within this timeframe. While the Complainant alleges verbal assurances of
an earlier possession date, the terms of the written agreement are binding
and take precedence over any oral commitments.
33. Regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is acknowledged
that it constitutes a force majeure event that has affected construction
timelines across the industry. The RERA authorities have recognized this
and granted extensions accordingly. Although the Complainant contends
that the Agreement of Sale does not account for such delays and that
construction progressed during the pandemic, it is reasonable to consider
the widespread disruptions caused by the pandemic as a valid factor
contributing to any delays.
34. Concerning the alleged deficiencies in construction and discrepancies in
measurements, the Complainant has raised substantial points that merit
further examination. The allegations of incomplete works, such as ceiling
plastering, painting, and the installation of the storeroom door, as well as
the discrepancies in balcony measurements, suggest potential deviations
from the agreed specifications. The Respondents, however, deny these
claims and assert that the flat has been constructed as per the agreed
standards.
35.

During the course of the hearing, the Respondent No. 2 sought

additional time to complete the pending works and hand over possession of
the unit to the Complainant. The Complainant, in the spirit of cooperation,
consented to the same. On the subsequent date of hearing, the Respondent
8 of 10

submitted that all pending works had been completed. However, the
Complainant contested this assertion, stating that the ceiling plastering
remained incomplete and that the surfaces were uneven and not in
conformity with agreed standards.
36.

The Authority observes that, under Section 11(4)(a) of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the promoter is duty-bound to
adhere to the obligations outlined in the Agreement for Sale and the Sale
Deed. This statutory provision mandates the promoter to execute the work
as per the agreed specifications and deliver the unit to the allottee within the
stipulated timeline. The Authority observes that, in the present case, the
Respondent No. 2 has failed to conclusively demonstrate that all pending
works have been completed in accordance with the agreed specifications.
The Complainant’s submissions regarding incomplete ceiling plastering and
uneven surfacing highlight a failure to meet the obligations stipulated in the
Agreement of Sale
37.

Further the Complainant claims there has been a delay in handing

over of the possession and claims compensation before this Authority for the
same. It is essential to understand that the said Act clearly distinguishes
between interest and compensation, providing them as distinct entitlements
available to the allottees. The adjudication of claims for compensation falls
within the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer. The procedure for such
claims requires the complainant to file the appropriate application in Form
‘N’ before the Adjudicating Officer, who is vested under RE(R&D) Act to
decide on matters relating to compensation.
G. Directions of the Authority:
38.

Upon due consideration of the submissions, documentary evidence,

and arguments advanced by both parties, and having regard to the
observations made during the proceedings, the following directions under
section 37 of the RE(R&D) Act to ensure compliance with obligations
imposed upon the under the RE(R&D) Act are issued:
9 of 10

1. Respondent No. 2 is directed to complete all pending works in respect
of Flat No. 1005 in accordance with the specifications set forth in the
Agreement of Sale dated November 19, 2020.
2. Respondent No. 2 shall address and rectify any discrepancies or
deviations, if any, in conformity with the terms and conditions
stipulated in the said Agreement of Sale.
3. Respondent

No.

2

is

further

directed

to

comply

with

the

aforementioned directions within a period of thirty (30) days from the
date of this order. Upon compliance, Respondent No. 2 shall hand
over possession of the said unit to the concerned party.
4. . Respondent 2 is hereby informed that failure to comply with this
order shall attract Section 63 of the RERA act.
39. The complaint is disposed of with these directions. There shall be no
order as to costs.

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

SdSri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

10 of 10