Order Complaint No. 85 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 85 of 2024
17th September 2025
Corum:

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

Bomma Laxmikanth
R/o- Flat No. F-412, Indis VB City, Turkapally Village
Macha Bollarum
Alwal, Hyderabad
…Complainant

Telangana 500010
AND

1. VB City LLP Represented by its Promoters/Land Owner/Investor Gummadi Anand Reddy
R/o Plot No - 825 ROAD NO -44
Jubliee Hills, Hyd -500033
2. VB City LLP Represented by its Promoters /Land Owner/Investor Gummadi Sharada
Reddy
R/o Plot No - 825 ROAD NO -44
Jubliee Hills, Hyd -500033
3. VB City LLP Represented by its Promoters/Land Owner/Investor G Aruna Reddy
R/o Plot No - 825 ROAD NO -44
Jubliee Hills, Hyd -500033
4. VB City LLP Represented by its Promoters/Land Owner/Investor G. Naveena
R/o Plot No - 825 ROAD NO-44
Jubliee Hills, Hyd -500033
1

---

…Respondent(s)

The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing on 17.07.2025
before this Authority in the presence of and Complainant in person, and Counsel for the
Respondent No.1-4, Ch. Sharath Babu appeared in person, and after hearing the submission
made by both the parties, this Authority passes the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has 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 relief(s) against the Respondents.
A. Brief Facts of the Case:
3.

The Complainant submitted that he had purchased Flat No. F-513, admeasuring 842.11

sq.ft., along with one car parking space, situated on the 5th Floor of “Tower-F” constructed in
Survey Nos. 70 and 71, forming part of the residential project “VB CITY”. The said flat was
purchased from Respondent No. 5, Smt. Anitha Agarwal, through a registered Sale Deed dated
20.07.2022. The said Sale Deed records that the Complainant was handed over vacant and
peaceful possession of the said flat.
4.

It is submitted that Respondent No. 5 had earlier purchased the said flat from

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 through a registered Sale Deed dated 31.03.2022, thereby deriving title
from the developer entities.
5.

The Complainant further submitted that on 19.04.2024, while he was away from the

premises, a fire broke out in Flat No. F-513. The incident was first noticed by fellow residents
and the security personnel, who promptly attempted to control and extinguish the fire.
6.

However, their efforts were seriously hindered due to the non-availability of adequate

fire extinguishers within the premises. The situation was further exacerbated by an alarming
lack of water pressure in the fire-fighting system installed in the building.

2

---

The Complainant alleged that these deficiencies reflect gross negligence on the part of

the developer, particularly in failing to ensure the installation and maintenance of functional
fire safety equipment as mandated by applicable laws and building regulations.
8.

As a result of the above, the fire caused extensive damage to the Complainant’s property

and posed a grave threat to the safety and well-being of other residents in the tower.
B. Reliefs Sought
9.

The Complainants has sought the following reliefs:
a) Rectification of electricals in all the flats of the project and installation of the
requisite firefighting systems as per national building code to prevent future
incidents
b) Restoration of the damaged flat by repairing the damages, flooring, ceiling,
changing electrical wiring, removal of accumulated soot and painting of the
walls and other miscellaneous walks like plumbing, etc.
c) Restoration of corridor by clearing the soot and painting

C. Counter filed by the Respondent No.1-4
10.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a detailed reply wherein they submitted that the

Complainant lacks the locus standi to maintain the present complaint before this Authority. It
was contended that a registered Association, namely, VB City Flat Owner's Cooperative
Maintenance Society Limited, bearing Registration No. 583/2021-R dated 09.04.2021, is
already in existence and is competent to address issues concerning the maintenance of the
project. The Respondent No.1-4 further submitted that, as on date, no complaint regarding
faulty electricals has been received from the said Association or from any other resident.
11.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that the construction of the building over land

admeasuring 11.10 acres in Survey Nos. 70 and 71, situated at Turkapally Village, Alwal, under
the jurisdiction of GHMC, Alwal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, was carried out in strict
accordance with the building permit bearing No. 1/C27/18828/2018 dated 11.12.2018 issued
by GHMC. It was submitted that Phase I of the VB City project comprises Blocks A to F, with
each block containing 70 units, amounting to a total of 420 residential units. As per the
Respondents, handover of all individual units in Phase I was completed in the year 2021.

3

---

The Respondent No.1-4 further submitted that the project was completed in compliance

with the sanctioned plan and all statutory requirements, following which GHMC issued an
Occupancy Certificate vide Proceedings No. 1/C27/04263/2021 dated 18.03.2021. It was
contended that the issuance of the Occupancy Certificate by the competent authority is
conclusive proof that the project meets all applicable safety and quality standards and was
completed in accordance with law. The Respondents relied on the said certificate to
demonstrate that there existed no construction defects in the building, including any relating to
electrical systems.
13.

The Respondent No. 1-4 submitted that the Complainant had filed an application before

the Electrical Department and GHMC on 22.04.2024 seeking an inspection report for the
subject flat. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Electrical and Vigilance Department of GHMC
inspected the flat and issued an inspection report dated 29.04.2024. In the said report, it was
categorically stated on page 2 under the remarks section that the building is a non-high-rise
residential structure with a height of 14.90 metres and therefore not subject to mandatory Fire
NOC requirements. The Respondents extracted the relevant portion of the report, which
clarified that, under prevailing rules, the builder was not required to obtain a Fire NOC for such
construction.
14.

It was also submitted by the Respondent No.1-4 that all 420 flats in Phase I have been

occupied by their respective owners, including the Complainant, and that, to date, no
complaints have been received from any other residents regarding any electrical defects.
Therefore, the Respondents contended that the fire incident in the Complainant’s flat was the
result of his own negligence or other factors beyond the control of the Respondents and not
due to any deficiency or omission on their part. The Respondents further submitted that, as per
Clause 12(2)(b) of the Telangana State Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017,
natural wear and tear of fittings related to plumbing, sanitary, electrical, and hardware are
specifically excluded from the defect liability period. They also cited that such Rules were
framed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 84 read with clause (g)(iv)
of Section 2 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
15.

The Respondents submitted that, after filing the Vakalat, they came to know that the

corridor outside Flat No. 513 had not been cleaned following the fire incident. However, since
FIR No. 257/2024 dated 19.04.2024 had been registered and another case CC No. 02 of 2024
was pending before this Authority under Form “N,” the Respondents refrained from cleaning
4

---

It was also submitted that the Complainant is not the original allottee of the subject flat.

Initially, the flat was purchased by one Ms. Anitha Agarwal, who is arrayed as Respondent
No.5, from VB City LLP on 31.03.2022. The Complainant subsequently purchased the flat in
resale from Respondent No.5 on 20.07.2022. It was submitted that, post-purchase, the
Complainant undertook extensive interior modifications, including substantial electrical works,
the details of which remain unclear. The Respondents, therefore, argued that the source of the
electrical malfunction leading to the fire cannot be attributed to the original builder’s work in
the absence of any expert report.
17.

The Respondents further stated that they had engaged M/s. Micron Electricals, a

reputed “SUPER GRADE” and Class-1/Class-A certified electrical contractor, for execution
of all electrical works across the VB City project. It was asserted that the said contractor is
known for quality installations and that high-grade materials and standards were employed
throughout the project.
18.

They further alleged that the Complainant, after purchasing the flat in the secondary

sale, installed excessive lighting and false wooden ceiling panels that significantly increased
the electrical load, resulting in frequent power tripping in the flat. Despite being warned
multiple times, the Complainant allegedly took no steps to address the overload. It was also
stated, upon internal enquiry, that the Complainant had stored a large number of office files in
the premises, which may have contributed to the rapid spread of fire during the incident on
19.04.2024 at around 06:35 a.m., causing damage to interiors and various electronic items,
along with cash and gold ornaments. The Respondents maintained that the Complainant’s own
negligent conduct led to the fire.
19.

The Respondents further submitted that the Complainant had filed a complaint with the

Station House Officer, Alwal, resulting in registration of FIR No. 257/2024 dated 19.04.2024.
However, they asserted that mere registration of an FIR does not amount to a finding of guilt
and, therefore, cannot be taken as evidence of any liability on their part. They contended that
the said criminal proceedings are unrelated to the matter before this Authority.

5

---

It was also submitted that, as per information gathered from other residents, the

Complainant was in a hurry to leave for work on the morning of the incident. He left his flat
around 06:35 a.m., and within five minutes thereafter, the fire reportedly broke out. The
Respondents contended that the Complainant may have forgotten to switch off an electrical
device, which ultimately triggered the fire, thereby making him solely responsible for the
mishap.
21.

The Respondents also pointed out that the facility maintenance team, M/s. Dabar,

responded promptly to the fire incident at 06:45 a.m., and simultaneously informed the Fire
Department. The fire safety mechanisms installed at the site were immediately activated,
including the use of fire extinguishers and fire safety balls, which helped to contain the fire
before the arrival of the fire engine, thereby preventing its spread and mitigating further
damage.
22.

Lastly, the Respondents asserted that the Complainant’s allegations are baseless, devoid

of evidence, and represent an attempt to shift the burden of responsibility onto the builder
unjustly. They reiterated that they are not liable for any damages or repair works sought by the
Complainant and prayed that the present complaint be dismissed in its entirety. They also
emphasized that the Complainant has failed to provide any specific or technical evidence
regarding the alleged electrical faults such as faulty cables, defective meters, malfunctioning
switches, or tripped MCBs which could substantiate his claims. Accordingly, they urged this
Authority to reject the complaint for want of merit.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant
23.

The Complainant respectfully submitted that prior to the unfortunate incident on

19.04.2024, he had repeatedly experienced persistent electrical issues in the subject flat,
including frequent tripping of the Miniature Circuit Breakers (MCBs) and several
nonfunctional power sockets. These issues were duly brought to the attention of the facility
management team, and although temporary repairs were undertaken, the recurrence of
electrical faults remained unresolved. The Complainant further submitted that other residents
of the project had also faced similar electrical issues, which raises serious and credible concerns
regarding the quality and safety of the electrical installations carried out in the project by the
Respondents.

6

---

Following the incident, the Complainant submitted that he promptly lodged complaints

with the concerned authorities, including the Police Department, Town Planning Department,
and Fire Safety Department. Subsequently, an inspection was conducted by the Fire Safety
Department, and a detailed report dated 30.04.2024 was submitted. The said report disclosed
grave shortcomings in the fire safety installations of the project, such as the absence of an
adequate number of fire extinguishers, hose reels, terrace tanks, and booster pumps. These are
all mandatory components under Table 7, Part 4 of the National Building Code of India, 2016,
and their absence is a clear violation of statutory safety norms.
25.

The Complainant further submitted that while the Respondents had obtained initial

building permission from GHMC on 11.12.2018, such permission was granted conditional
upon the Respondents’ compliance with all applicable fire safety norms. However, in light of
the findings of the Fire Safety Department, it is evident that the Respondents failed to adhere
to these essential conditions. Despite these serious violations, the Respondents managed to
obtain an Occupancy Certificate, thereby raising serious concerns regarding procedural lapses
and negligence on the part of the concerned statutory authorities. In this context, the
Complainant filed a complaint before the Town Planning Department on 14.10.2024, seeking
cancellation of the said Occupancy Certificate. Pursuant thereto, GHMC issued a letter dated
01.11.2024, wherein it acknowledged the existence of fire safety deficiencies and directed the
Respondents to undertake immediate rectification by installing the required fire safety systems.
26.

The Complainant further submitted that the Respondents, on their official website and

promotional material, continue to falsely claim full compliance with the National Building
Code of India, 2016, thereby wilfully misrepresenting the safety standards of the project and
endangering the lives and property of its residents. It is submitted that had the Respondents
ensured proper implementation of the prescribed fire safety measures, the damage and trauma
caused to the Complainant and his family could have been significantly mitigated, if not
altogether avoided.
27.

With regard to the Respondents' contention that the Complainant lacks locus standi to

approach the Authority due to the existence of a registered residents’ association, the
Complainant submitted that such an argument is wholly misconceived. It is submitted that the
maintenance and management of the project has not yet been handed over to the said
Association, and the same continues to remain under the control of the Respondents. Further,
the Association itself has raised safety concerns in its General Body Meetings with respect to
7

---

The Complainant respectfully submitted that certain crucial documents have been

recently obtained after the matter was reserved for orders initially, and their consideration is
essential to prevent grave injustice. The Complainant submitted that the documents clearly
establish continuing negligence of the Respondents in addressing vital fire and electrical safety
concerns. In light of their relevance and recent acquisition, the Complainant prayed for
reopening of the matter, admission of the documents on record, and issuance of directions to
the Respondents to rectify the deficiencies and bear appropriate costs for their negligent
conduct.
F. Points for Consideration
29.
Upon deliberation of the contentions of the parties as well as the documents filed
therein, the following issues sprout for consideration:
a. Whether the present Complaint maintainable before the Hon’ble Authority?
b. Whether the Complainant entitled to the reliefs, prayed for?
G. Observation by the Authority
Point I
30.

At the outset, the Authority deems it appropriate to address the preliminary issue raised

by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 regarding the maintainability of the present complaint. The
Respondents have contended that since a registered association, namely, the VB City Flat
Owner’s Cooperative Maintenance Society Limited, is already in existence, any grievance
pertaining to common areas, shared amenities, or infrastructure ought to be raised through such
Association alone, and not by an individual allottee.
31.

Upon careful consideration of the record and the nature of reliefs sought, the Authority

finds that the grievance of the Complainant is twofold: first, certain relief pertains to the entire
project, including the rectification of faulty electrical installations and the installation of fire8

---

In general, matters involving the upkeep and rectification of shared infrastructure such

as project-wide electrical systems or fire safety measures fall within the scope of collective
interest, and therefore, a registered Association is considered the appropriate party to agitate
such issues under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
33.

However, the present complaint cannot be treated as a case involving generic

infrastructure grievances alone. The Complainant has asserted that the failure to install
adequate fire safety equipment directly contributed to the fire incident in his flat, causing
significant damage to life and property. Notably, the fire accident occurred on 19.04.2024 and
is not a speculative or hypothetical concern, but a real and serious event that resulted in actual
harm. Following the said incident, the building was inspected by the Electrical and Vigilance
Department of GHMC on 29.04.2024, with specific reference to the fire that occurred in the
Complainant’s unit. Pursuant to this inspection, a report was issued identifying serious
deficiencies in fire safety installations, including the absence of fire extinguishers, hose reels,
and terrace-level water storage and pumping infrastructure. These findings lend considerable
weight to the Complainant’s assertion that the existing fire safety measures were inadequate
and potentially contributed to the scale of the incident.
34.

In such circumstances, where a personal incident of such gravity is linked to broader

safety lapses within the project, the Authority finds it legally tenable for an individual allottee
to raise grievances even on issues that may otherwise be considered collective in nature. The
fact that the Complainant has directly suffered harm due to the absence of fire safety
mechanisms, and the further fact that the matter concerns ongoing risk to his own flat,
distinguishes this case from ordinary complaints regarding common area maintenance or
shared infrastructure. Accordingly, to the extent that the relief sought for the installation of
fire-fighting equipment is grounded in personal injury and demonstrated deficiency, the same
is considered maintainable at the instance of the Complainant.
35.

As regards to the other project-wide relief sought by the Complainant namely,

rectification of electrical installations in all flats of the project the Authority is of the considered

9

---

Accordingly, the complaint is held to be maintainable to the extent it concerns:

(a) the specific damage caused to the Complainant’s individual flat due to the fire accident; and
(b) the prayer for installation of fire-fighting systems in the project, to the extent such systems
directly impact the safety of the Complainant and arise out of the specific incident in question.
37.

The objection raised by the Respondent No.1-4 regarding locus standi is therefore partly

sustained and partly rejected. While the Complainant is not competent to seek reliefs that are
collective in nature and affect all residents, he is fully competent to seek redress for deficiencies
affecting his own unit and safety, particularly in light of the fire incident that has occurred and
been independently verified. The complaint is thus held to be maintainable to the extent
indicated herein.
Point II
38.

Having addressed the preliminary issue of maintainability, the Authority shall now

proceed to consider the reliefs sought by the Complainant. As per the complaint and subsequent
pleadings, the reliefs may be broadly classified under the following heads:
(i) installation of requisite fire-fighting systems; and
(ii) restoration of the Complainant’s flat by repairing the
damages, flooring, ceiling, changing electrical wiring,
removal of accumulated soot and painting of the walls and
other miscellaneous walks like plumbing, etc. as well as the
corridor area, including clearing of soot, internal repairs,
and repainting.

39.

With regard to the first relief concerning fire safety systems, it is relevant to note that

following the fire incident that occurred on 19.04.2024, an inspection was undertaken by the
Electrical and Vigilance Department of GHMC on 29.04.2024. The inspection report, which
has been placed on record by the Complainant, clearly outlines several deficiencies in fire
safety installations in Tower-F, where the Complainant’s flat is located. Specifically, as per
Table 7 and the Remarks section of the said report, the following critical components were
found missing:
10

---

27 fire extinguishers;

b.

12 first aid hose reels;

c.

a 5000-litre terrace tank; and

d.

a booster pump of 450 LPM at the terrace level.
Even though the competent authority has noted that a Fire NOC is not required, as the

subject building does not qualify as a high-rise structure under the applicable regulations, the
inspection report highlights certain deficiencies which, though not mandatorily triggering the
need for a Fire NOC, may still warrant immediate rectification, as they pertain directly to the
life and safety of the residents and cannot be disregarded merely on technical grounds.
40.

In view of the above findings, the Authority directs Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to strictly

comply with the recommendations contained in Table 7 and the Remarks portion of the GHMC
inspection report dated 29.04.2024. Such compliance is essential in the interest of ensuring
occupant safety and adherence to regulatory obligations. The Respondents are accordingly
directed to take immediate steps for the installation of the above-mentioned fire safety
equipments, as per the inspection findings.
41.

Having addressed the issue of fire safety infrastructure, the Authority now proceeds to

consider the Complainant’s second substantive relief, namely, the restoration of his individual
flat, including repairs to the damaged flooring and ceiling, which were allegedly affected by
the fire incident. This relief arises from the same factual matrix as the fire safety issue and has
been evaluated in light of the inspection report dated 29.04.2024 issued by the Electrical and
Vigilance Department, GHMC.
42.

While the report notes significant deficiencies in the fire safety infrastructure of the

building, it does not provide any observation or finding as to the actual cause of the fire incident
that occurred in the Complainant’s flat. The report remains silent on whether the fire was
triggered due to any electrical fault, construction defect, or act or omission on the part of the
Respondents.
43.

In the absence of any indication in the inspection report attributing the fire incident to

the conduct of the Respondents, the Authority is of the considered view that it would not be
appropriate to hold the Respondents liable for the damage caused to the Complainant’s flat,
additionally when the subject flat is a second purchase. In the absence of any factual or
11

---

It is also pertinent to mention that, with regard to the restoration of the common corridor

by clearing the soot the Respondents have submitted that the said work has already been
completed. Further, the Complainant, during the proceedings acknowledged the same. Hence,
no further directions are warranted on this aspect.
45.

The Authority shall now turn to the remaining components of the Complainant’s prayer,

which relates to the internal restoration work within the subject flat including painting,
plumbing, replacement of electrical wiring, and similar fittings. This Authority as observed in
earlier paragraphs, holds that the Complainant failed to produce any substantive documents or
credible report attributing the fault of the Respondents. In such absence of proper and cogent
evidence this Authority can’t fasten or impose liability over the Respondents. Especially, when
there is no clarity as to how the unfortunate act has taken place. It is not fair or just to make
Respondents responsible without establishing the precise cause or fault leading to such
occurrence. The burden of proof lies squarely upon the Complainant to demonstrate the alleged
default on the part of the Respondent, if the Complainant wants him solely to rectify. Therefore,
as he failed to do so, this Authority can’t grant such relief.
H. Direction by the Authority
46.

In light of the above discussion, the Authority vide its powers under Section 37 and 38,

issues the following direction:
I.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are directed to strictly comply with the recommendations
contained in Table 7 of the inspection report issued by the EV & DM Department,
GHMC, which identifies the following critical deficiencies in Tower-F:
a. Absence of 27 fire extinguishers;
b. Absence of 12 first aid hose reels;
c. Absence of a 5000-litre terrace tank; and
d. Absence of a booster pump of 450 LPM at the terrace level; within a period of
30(thirty) days from the date of this Order.
12

---

Further, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shall also comply with all other observations and
recommendations set out in the said inspection report issued by the competent authority,
in the interest of ensuring fire safety and compliance with applicable norms. Such
compliance shall likewise be effected within a period of thirty (30) days from the date
of this Order.

III.

In addition, the parties are directed to ensure that fire safety systems are periodically
inspected by competent authority, so as to prevent the recurrence of any hazardous
conditions or accidents in future.

47.

In light of the above direction, 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

13

---