Order Complaint No. 714 of 2022

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.714 OF 2022
16th Day of September, 2023
Corum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member

Dr. Pagidipati Sudhakar

…Complainant
Versus

1. Sri Punukollu Sumanth,
Managing Partner of M/s Amaze Constructions
2. Sri Punukollu Sudhir,
Partner of M/s Amaze Constructions
3. Sri Komatireddy Sandeep Reddy (Landowner)
4. Sri V. Nikhil, Marketing Executive,
M/s Realting
…Respondents
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on
03.10.2023 before this Authority in the presence of Dr. Pagidipati Sudhakar, the
Complainant and the Sri Kiran Kumar, Chartered Accountant of Respondent Nos.1
& 2 and none for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 on Notice and upon hearing the arguments
of the parties, this Authority passes the following ORDER:

2.

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”).

1 of 7

A. Facts of the Complaint:
2.

The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant purchased open Plot No.99 in

City Front Venture (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”) vide Sale Deed
Document No.4041/2021 dt.11.02.2021 at SRO, Maheswaram, Ranga Reddy
District in HMDA approved layout vide LP No.000209/LO/Plg/HMDA/2019
dt.09.07.2019, TS RERA Registration No.P02400001237 in Survey No.65, 66 and
66/E2,

situated

at

Mansanpally

Revenue

Village

&

Gram

Panchayath,

Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana from Mr. K. Sandeep Reddy
(land owner) through Mr. V. Nikhil, Marketing Executive. That upon assurance of the
landowner, developer and the marketing executive, the Complainant purchased the
said property assuming the amenities provided for in the brochure would be
provided.

3.

The Complainant further submitted that, Mr. Sumanth, Managing Partner of

M/s Amaze Constructions had legal agreement of DGPA with land owner registered
vide Document No.6955/2018, dt. 26.04.2018 and the Suppl. deed No.24571/2019
dt.09.09.2019. Since the purchase of the said property, the Complainant submitted
that the Respondent/Developer ignored his responsibilities and abandoned the
Project without security and incomplete amenities. Further, some of the plot owners
tried to contact the Respondent No.1 enquiring about the status of the amenities that
were promised to be constructed in the Project, but no answer was accorded.
Aggrieved, the Complainant issued emails to HMDA and this Authority requesting to
take cognizance of the matter.

4.

The Complainant further submitted that, after continuously pursuing the

Respondents, the Respondent No.1 conducted a meeting with plot owners at the
Project premises on 25.09.2022 around 11 a.m., wherein he denied implementation

2 of 7

of any amenities as promised for in the brochure and further blamed Mr. V. Nikhil,
the marketing executive, that it was his responsibility. Complainant submits that the
completion date as on the RERA Registration Certificate is given as 01.12.2023 and
therefore, requested this Authority to conduct detailed enquiry and take appropriate
action under applicable provisions of the Act and Rules.

B. Relief Sought:
5.

The Complainant sought for the following relief:

“Implementation of amenities printed in City Front brochure in prescribed time,
(construction of the club house) and to take necessary action against M/s Amaze
Constructions again started another ventures Amaze Sri Valley, Amaze Silent Valley
in same Maheshwaram Mandal near to the City Front Venture in order to save the
investors from cheating of M/s Amaze Constructions.”

6.

That Vide Notice dated 03.01.2023, the Respondents were directed, under

Rule 34(1) & (2) of the Rules, to file their reply.

Reply on behalf of the Respondent(s):
7.

That, accordingly, Vide Reply dated 19.01.2023, Respondent No.1 submitted

they have adhered to all the norms as per HMDA and also received the Final Layout
Permit on 17.01.2019. He further submitted that, this information had been
submitted before this Authority and the project has been closed.

8.

He added that he has not ignored any of his responsibilities and that the

meeting held on 25.09.2022 was not called for officially. He submitted that the
Complainant is spreading baseless allegations in the meeting and also in the open

3 of 7

market, thereby jeopardizing the reputation of the company and requested to do the
needful.

9.

Since the said Reply was not satisfactory, this Authority issued another Notice

on 04.04.2023 seeking a detailed reply and explanation in respect of the Complaint
filed by the Complainant. However, no reply was received by this Authority.

10.

The matter came up for hearing on 16.08.2023 and the Complainant

appeared. No appearance on behalf of the Respondents, however Sri Kiran Kumar,
chartered accountant of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 submitted the Reply in person.
The Complainant vehemently argued that the Respondents have violated the
provisions of the Act and Rules. He relied upon the Brochure of the Project issued by
Mr. V. Nikhil, marketing executive of the said Project. He further submitted that the
Developer/Promoter has cheated them by showing amenities in the brochure but
failed to provide anything in person.

11.

However, on the same date the Respondents filed another reply dated

16.08.2023 and reiterated that the Project adhered to all the norms as per HMDA
and the Final Layout Permit has also been received so far for the said Project on
17.01.2019. He submitted that these documents have also been submitted to this
Authority.

12.

He categorically stated that the allegations against Mr. Sumanth, Managing

Partner of M/s Amaze Constructions, which solely rely on the City Front Brochure,
are unfounded in regard to his obligations concerning the amenities in the project.
He further emphasized that the brochure explicitly states, "this brochure is just a
conceptual presentation and not a legal offering. The Promoter reserves the right to

4 of 7

alter and make changes in the plans, specifications and features as deemed fit." He
subsequently urged this Authority to take appropriate action.

Points for consideration by this Authority:
13.

Record perused. Following issues sprout for consideration:
i.

Whether the Respondent/Developer/Promotor has committed violation
of any provision under the Act and Rules?

ii.

Whether the Complainant’s relief, as prayed for, be granted, if yes, to
what extent?

Points (i) & (ii)
14.

Admittedly, the Promoter has obtained TS RERA Registration on 05.10.2019,

which ends on 01.12.2023. Further, the Sale Deed entered into dated 11.02.2021,
establishing that there is no violation of Section 3 or 4 of the Act. Under the
Agreement of Sale entered into between the parties, as submitted by the Complainant
during the course of hearing, there is no specific term agreed upon by the
Respondent/Builder to incorporate the amenities provided for in the Brochure.
Further, the Sale Deed on record also does not provide any terms for provision of
such amenities. It is also pertinent to note that the HMDA Approved Layout also does
not mention any of the amenities so provided for in the said Brochure as well as the
Website images appended by the Complainant with the present Complaint.
Therefore, as prayed for by the Complainant, it is not possible to provide for such
amenities in the absence of an approval by the competent authority i.e., the HMDA
in the present case. In this regard, we express that such deceitful marketing
techniques are deprecated and such persons ought to be punished under law.

5 of 7

15.

In this regard, it is pertinent to extract the provisions under Section 12 and

61 of the Act which read as under:
“12. Where any person makes an advance or a deposit on the basis of the
information contained in the notice advertisement or prospectus, or on the basis
of any model apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and sustains any
loss or damage by reason of any incorrect, false statement included therein, he
shall be compensated by the promoter in the manner as provided under this Act:

Provided that if the person affected by such incorrect, false statement contained
in the notice, advertisement or prospectus, or the model apartment, plot or
building, as the case may be, intends to withdraw from the proposed project,
he shall be returned his entire investment along with interest at such rate as
may be prescribed and the compensation in the manner provided under this
Act.”

“61. If any promoter contravenes any other provisions of this Act, other than
that provided under section 3 or section 4, or the rules or regulations made
thereunder, he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to five per cent.
of the estimated cost of the real estate project as determined by the Authority.”

16.

In lieu thereof, we hold that, the Respondent Promoter, on account of his

smart marketing technique has violated Section 12 by providing false information to
the prospective buyers promising them of the amenities that were never approved by
the Competent Authority and neither provided for in the Agreement of Sale.
Therefore, this Authority deems it fit to impose a penalty of Rs.2,56,500/- (Rupees
Two Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred Only) on the Respondent promoter
exercising its powers under Section 61 for contravening Section 12 by providing false

6 of 7

information to the Complainant in the Brochure as well as on its Website, payable in
favour of TS RERA FUNDS through Demand Draft or online payment to A/c
No.50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC: HDFC0007036, within a period of 30 days
from the date of receipt of this Order. This Authority also directs the Respondent to
delete such misleading information in the Brochure or on its Website within 15 days
of the receipt of this Order.

17.

The present complaint stands disposed of. The parties are hereby informed

that failure to comply with this Order shall attract Section 63 of the Act.

18.

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 Telangana 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 date of receipt of this Order.

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

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

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

7 of 7