Hyderabad: Real estate firm Prathishta Properties was directed to refund Rs 8.70 lakhs to a complainant with an annual interest of 12 per cent interest per annum for collecting huge amounts from him in the name of pre-launch offers without possessing any requisite permissions for the proposed plots.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad has directed Prathishta Properties to pay Rs 1 lakh towards compensation for the mental agony caused to him. It also directed to pay Rs 10,000 towards costs.
Case details
Garikipati Venkata Ramanjaneyulu, a private employee and resident of Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. Pratishtha Properties, through its agents, contacted Ramanjaneyulu and rolled out a venture in the limits of Venkatapur village, Sadasivapet Mandal, Sangareddy District. The agents explained the pre-launch offer and requested Ramanjaneyulu buy a plot in their venture.
The complainant was informed that as a pre-launch offer, the price per square yard was Rs 5,800 only and assured that the prices would grow multi-fold once the project gets approvals.
Having been attracted by the lucrative offer and activities promised by the Prathishta Properties, Ramanjaneyulu agreed to buy a plot measuring 150 sqyards for Rs 5,800 per square yard and made payments for Rs 8,70,000 in a phased manner.
Registration was scheduled for seven months
Of the total amount, Ramanjaneyulu paid Rs 25,000 on January 18, 2022, through UPI, Rs 6,45,000 on January 29, 2022, through cheque, Rs 80,000 on March 26, 2022, through cheque and Rs 1,20,000 on June 4, 2022, through cash.
The complainant obtained receipts for the payments made by him and accordingly, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on May 31, 2022, was executed by the Prathishta Properties with an assurance to register the property within seven months.
Ramanjaneyulyu, after seven months, contacted Prathishta Properties to register the plot. However, the real estate informed him that the approvals are in the final stages, and they need some more time to complete the registration. The complainant visited the KPHB office of Prathishta Properties in June 2023 and tried to meet the real estate firm representative, but he was not in the office.
Another executive namely Srikanth was assigned to handle this matter. Thereafter, Ramanjaneyulu visited the Opposite party again in August 2023 and this time they offered different properties in Sadasivpet. None of the said sites were ready for registration.
Company started ignoring calls
The Prathishta Properties promised that they would complete the registration in January 2024. When the complainant tried to contact the Opposite party in January 2024, they did not answer the calls nor reply to his WhatsApp messages.
Further, Ramanjaneyulu personally visited the plots in February 2024 and informed the Opposite party that he lost trust in them, requested a refund of the amount paid so far and informed that he was ready to surrender the agreement.
In March 2024, Prathishta Properties over a phone call assured the complainant that they would either complete registration by March 15, 2024, or refund the money. However, after the said date the phone of the Opposite party was not reachable and there was no response to the SMS, WhatsApp messages or phone calls of Ramanjaneyulu.
Notice to firm returned
A notice was served to Prathishta Properties on July 1, 2024, but the same was returned with an endorsement ‘Unclaimed, Return to Sender’ which is deemed to be served. Despite the notice, there was no representation from the Opposite Party in several adjournments.
On August 29, since the written version of Prathishta Properties was not filed, given the completion of the stipulated time for filing the written version of the Opposite Party, their right to file the written version is forfeited. Knowing about the consequences of defaulting on the promise made to Ramanjaneyulu concerning the MoU (dated May 31, 2022) Prathishta Properties has chosen not to appear before this commission and contest its matter.
The court noted that collecting huge amounts from the consumers in the name of pre-launch offers, without possessing any requisite permissions for the proposed plots, is an unfair trade practice. Prathishta Properties not responding to Ramanjaneyulu and not registering the subject plot in his name as promised, amounts to unfair trade practice.
Hence, the court ruled in favour of Ramanjaneyulu and directed Prathishta Properties and listed the compensation.
