RHC VENTURES LIMITED Vs. KITCHANNAGARI SARVESHWARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') challenges the order dtd. 13/12/2019 in Complaint no.227 of 2018 of the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, 'the State Commission') partly allowing the complaint and holding the appellant nos. 1 and 3 to be jointly and severally liable and directing them to refund Rs.30.00 lakh with interest @ 12% per annum and from the respective payment till realisation together with cost of Rs.10,000.00 within four weeks.

(2.) The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent no.1 had entered into an Agreement to Sale with appellant no.1, 2 and 3 on 22/12/2014 for the purchase of a residential flat no.509 5th Floor, 'Symphony Royale' Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, ad-measuring 1200 sq ft (super area) along with undivided share of land approximately 35 sq yds including 2 car parking slots for a sale consideration of Rs.42.00 lakh. As per clause 2 of this agreement an advance Rs.30.00 lakh was paid by respondent no.1 by way of three cheques dtd. 15/12/2014, 22/12/2014 and 26/12/2014. As per Clause 4 (a), construction was to be completed within 24 months from the date of agreement, i.e., 22/12/2016 with grace period of six months i.e., by 22/6/2017. As the construction work had not been completed and no offer of possession was made, respondent no.1 sent a legal notice to appellant no.1 on 22/12/2016 which did not elicit any reply. Respondent no.1 approached an Arbitrator as per hearing notice dtd. 27/3/2017. The Arbitrator, after hearing both the sides, returned the claim on 30/5/2018 on the ground that the appellant had not agreed for the arbitral reference. Respondent no.1, thereafter filed CC no.227 of 2018 before the State Commission praying for directions to appellant to complete construction early and hand over the flat after receiving the balance sale consideration and to register the flat in his name. In the alternative, it was prayed to refund Rs.30.00 lakh with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of payment till realisation with compensation of Rs.10.00 lakh and Rs.2.00 lakh towards cost and legal expenses. Despite issue of several notices by the State Commission to appellant no.1, the appellant remained unrepresented and notices were returned unserved with the endorsement 'left' or 'unclaimed'. With the permission of the State Commission, service of notice was affected by way of publication on 13/5/2019 in a local newspaper 'Namasthe Telangana'. As the appellant continued to remain unrepresented, the State Commission proceeded ex parte vide impugned order dtd. 13/12/2019 and noted that:

(3.) This order is impugned before us.