K.J. DEEPAK REDDY Vs. P. VASANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 27.12.2013, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 26/2013, "K.J. Deepak Reddy versus P. Vasantha & Ors." vide which the said consumer complaint was partly allowed. The complainant has filed the present appeal requesting for passing the award as prayed for in the consumer complaint.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant K.G. Deepak Reddy filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that the OPs had published an advertisement in the newspapers for the sale of flats in the newly-constructed apartments at Hyderabad, following which he entered into an agreement for purchase of flat, measuring 1380 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs. 37 lakh and that, he paid a sum of Rs. 3 lakh as initial advance for the purpose. The respondents/OPs 1 & 2 are wife and husband and the respondent 3 / OP 3 is their relative and business associate in their real estate business. The entire transaction of sale was divided into two parts one for agreement of sale for Rs. 21,02,000/- and the other was work order for the value of Rs. 15,98,000/-, making a total of Rs. 37 lakh as sale consideration. The complainant, alongwith his mother, obtained a housing loan of Rs. 30 lakh with interest @ 10.7% p.a. from LIC Housing Finance Corporation Limited. The OPs executed a regular sale-deed in favour of the complainant on 28.04.2012. The complainant incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2 lakh for execution of registered sale-deed and spent Rs. 3 lakh for the wood work and hence, he spent a total sum of Rs. 42 lakh for buying the said flat. It has been alleged by the complainant that he was given an impression by the OPs that the entire apartment building was regularised under the Building Penalisation Scheme (BPS), but he found later on, that there was neither BPS regularisation nor the building had been constructed as per the norms and regularisation of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). The complainants alleged that it was an unauthorised construction and a clear-cut case of cheating and unfair trade practice, amounting to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question with the following prayer:-

(3.) In their reply before the State Commission, the OPs stated that they never published any advertisement in the newspapers. They stated that they never cheated the complainant. In fact, a regularised plan was obtained by the vendors of the OPs, from whom, they purchased the said property in June 2011, to develop the unfinished building. The complainant had verified the facts before entering into an agreement with them. The State Commission after taking into account the evidence of the parties, passed the impugned order, the operative part of which reads as follows:-