Order Complaint No. 72 of 2024

BEFORETELANGANAREALESTATEREGULATORYAUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate( Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINTNO.72 OF 2024
31st October ,2024
Dr.N.Satyanarayana,IAS(Retd.), Hon’bleChairperson
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
SriK.SrinivasaRao,Hon’bleMember

Corum:

Miss. Muddham Sri Vidya

…Complainant

Versus
Smt. J. Ramdevi, landowner
Sri.Venkat Rami Reddy president of Residential Association
…Respondents
The present matter filed by the Complainant, came up for final
hearing on 24.08.2024. The Complainant appeared in person,
represented

by

Satya

Narayana,

while

Respondent

S mt.

J.

Ramadevi and Respondent 2 were also present. Upon hearing the
submissions of both parties, the 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 “RE(R&D) Act” read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana
Rea lEstate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as the “Rules”) seeking directions from this Authority to
take action against the Respondent.
A.

Brief facts on behalf of the Complainant:

3.

The

Complainant

submitted

a

complaint,

informing

this

Authority that she purchased Flat No. 201 on the 2nd floor of the
"Sunrise Bliss" project located at Kanthivanam Colony, Kondapur,
Sherilingampally. Upon receiving the full payment, the flat was
registered in favor of the Complainant in October 2022.
4.

Following the registration, the Complainant alleges that the

Respondent 2 demanded additional charges for Manjeera water,
1of4

CCTV, and other amenities. She further claims to have paid an
additional Rs. 50,000/- towards these extra charges..
5.

The Complainant also highlighted unresolved issues with

repairs in the flat, lack of water connection, and absence of a
designated parking space..
B. Relief sought:
6.

To direct the Respondent 1, landowner to refund the extra

charges collected and Compensation for the inconveniences caused
by repairs, water disconnection, and alleged harassment.
C. Reply on behalf of the Respondent:
7.

In a reply dated 22.07.2024, the Respondent 1 contended that the

complaint is not maintainable under the RE(R&D) Act, asserting that the
dispute is between a flat buyer and a subsequent seller, rather than a
developer, builder, promoter, or real estate agent.
8.

The Respondent submitted that the additional charge as a "caution

deposit" was collected by the Flat Owners Association for community welfare
purposes. The Respondent asserted that Respondent 1, landowener played no
role in the collection of these charges, which are under the purview of the
Association.
9.

The Respondent further highlighted that both the Complainant and

Respondent had signed an agreement with the Association, Respondent 2,
which included provisions for the caution deposit, thus resolving the issue at
the time of sale.
10.

Further that Complainant has pursued multiple complaints in various

forums, including the police, Lok Adalat, and consumer forum, indicating an
attempt to seek redress on the same matter through multiple legal avenues.
11.

Respondent 2, the president of the Flat Owners Association, submitted

that the Association had indeed collected a caution deposit and other charges
from all flat owners, including the Complainant, to cover the operational costs
for amenities and services within the residential complex. Respondent 2
2of4

clarified that the collection of these fees was a collective decision made in the
interest of maintaining essential services for all residents. He asserted that the
Complainant was duly informed about these charges through Association
meetings and general communications, where the rationale for the charges was
transparently discussed.Respondent 2 stated that all residents, including the
Complainant,

were

informed

of

the

Association’s

policies

regarding

maintenance costs, water supply charges, CCTV installation, and other
communal facilities. These charges were approved in compliance with other
residents.
D. Observations and Directions of the Authority:
12.

Upon reviewing the submissions, it is evident that the primary dispute

revolves around the collection of a caution deposit by the Flat Owners
Association- Respondent 2, which the Complainant claims was not disclosed
by the Respondent at the time of sale. Additional issues regarding repairs,
water connection, and parking were also raised.
13.

In accordance with Rule 38 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation

and Development) Rules, 2017, complaints under the RE(R&D) Act are
maintainable solely for disputes involving allottees, developers, promoters, or
real estate agents. The current complaint pertains to a transaction between the
Complainant and the Resident welfare association pertaining to the amount
collected for Manjeera water connection.
14.

Furthermore, the collection of maintenance charges, including the

caution deposit, falls within the responsibilities of the Flat Owners Association,
not the Respondent 1. Respondent 2, the Association's president, has stated
that the amount was collected from all flat owners to cover for the connection
of Manjeera water. The Complainant was informed of these charges in
Association meetings, indicating transparency in the Association's practices,
and the complainant was well aware of the same. Further that the Respondent
1 has no part in it, as the decision was made amongst the residents and the
same was informed to the complainant as well.
15.

The RE(R&D) Act has no provision which allows this Authority to

adjudicate on matters arising between a resident and the Apartment
3of4

Association regarding maintenance and issues related to new connection fees.
Given that the complaint does not involve against allotee developer, promoter,
or real estate agent, and primarily pertains to Association matters which fall
outside the ambit of RE(R&D) Act, this Authority finds the complaint to be not
maintainable under the RE(R&D) Act.
16.

The Complainant may approach appropriate forum for such relief.

17.

Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed as it falls outside the

jurisdiction of this Authority.

SdSri.K.SrinivasRao,
Hon’ble Member
TGRERA

SdSri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TGRERA

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

4of4