Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

E.A. Nos. 12 and 13 of 2011. Case: Kuchakula Surender Reddy Vs Sikhara Constructions. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberE.A. Nos. 12 and 13 of 2011
Party NameKuchakula Surender Reddy Vs Sikhara Constructions
CounselFor Appellant: K. Surender Reddy, Advocate and For Respondents: S. Ramachandra Prasad, Advocate
JudgesGopala Krishna Tamada, J. (President) and R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member
IssueConsumer Law
CitationIII (2014) CPJ 248
Judgement DateJuly 24, 2014
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member

  1. The complainants have filed the petitions seeking for punishment of the respondents on the premise of their failure to comply with the orders dated 9.3.2011 passed by this Commission in C.C. No 2 of 2010 and C.C. 3 of 2010. This Commission allowed the complaints by order dated 9.3.2011 and passed the following order

    CC. 2 of 2010:

    the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to accept the balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000 from the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and opposite parties shall deliver flat No. 102 to the complainant with all required amenities as agreed upon before 1.9.2011 as evidence under Ex. B6, reiterating the genuineness or correctness of Ex. B6, Registered sale deed, cannot be agitated before this Commission and the aggrieved party should approach the Civil Court. Opposite parties 1 to 3 shall also pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the complainant for having delayed the construction, (as per the original schedule) together with costs of Rs. 5,000. Complaint against opposite parties 4 to 7 is dismissed without costs.

    C.C. 3 of 2010:

    the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to accept the balance amount of Rs. 10,00,000 from the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and opposite parties 1 to 3 shall deliver flat No. 504 to the complainant with all required amenities as agreed upon before 1.9.2011 as evidence under sale deed. We reiterate that the genuineness or correctness of Ex. B6, which is a registered document, cannot be agitated before this Commission and the aggrieved party should approach the Civil Court. Opposite parties 1 to 3 shall also pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the complainant for having delayed the construction, (as per the original schedule) together with costs of Rs. 5,000. Complaint against opposite parties 4 to 7 is dismissed without costs.

    Aggrieved by the orders, the third respondent filed appeals, FA Nos. 342-343 of 2011 before the Hon'ble National Commission which were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.5.2012. The Writ Petition in FA 16084 of 2012 filed by the third respondent was also dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. vide its order dated 24.9.2012. Thereafter the first respondent received Rs. 2,00,000 dated 7.7.2011 and Rs. 10,00,000 dated 7.7.2011 from the petitioner towards part payment of sale consideration. This Commission in EA 12 of...

To continue reading

Request your trial