BEFORE THE A.

P STATE CONSUMUER COMMISSION AT VIJAYAWADA

              F.A.No.               / 2022

Between:
1. M/s. Sreenadh Infra Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep.by its Manging Director,
Sri Karnati Nageswara Rao, S/o. Kotaiah,
4th Lane, Opp. Sanjeevi Hospital,
Guntur, Guntur District.

2. Karnati Nageswara Rao, S/o. Kotaiah,

Rep. on behalf of M/s. Sreenadh Infra Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
4th Lane, Opp. Sanjeevi Hospital,
Guntur, Guntur District.

3. The Branch Manager

M/s. Sreenadh Infra Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
4th Lane, Opp. Sanjeevi Hospital,
Guntur, Guntur District.              
…Appellants/Opp.parties.

                   AND

Ponnuru Ugandhar Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Subramanyam,                                           

Asst. Manger in Karvy Consultancy, Hyderabad
R/o. Flat No. 306, Siri Pratap Residency,
Behind Janpriya Apartments, Siri Malle Nagar,
Hyderguda, Hyderabad - 48.     …Respondent/Complainant.

ON APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20-09-2022 PASSED IN

C.C.No.159/2019 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION :: GUNTUR
Between:
Ponnuru Ugandhar Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Subramanyam,                                           
Asst. Manger in Karvy Consultancy, Hyderabad
R/o. Flat No. 306, Siri Pratap Residency,
Behind Janpriya Apartments, Siri Malle Nagar,
Hyderguda, Hyderabad - 48.     …
Complainant.

                    AND

1. M/s. Sreenadh Infra Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep.by its Manging Director,
Sri Karnati Nageswara Rao, S/o. Kotaiah,
4th Lane, Opp. Sanjeevi Hospital,
Guntur, Guntur District.

2. Karnati Nageswara Rao, S/o. Kotaiah,

 Rep. on behalf of M/s. Sreenadh Infra Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
4th Lane, Opp. Sanjeevi Hospital,
Guntur, Guntur District.
3. The Branch Manager
M/s. Sreenadh Infra Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
4th Lane, Opp. Sanjeevi Hospital,
Guntur, Guntur District.         …Opp.parties.

APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES UNDER

SECTION 41 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

I. Description of the appellants :- 

The description of the appellants is same as shown in the above cause title

and the address for service of summons, notices etc, on the appellants is that

of their counsel Ch.Nageswara Rao, Ch. Chandrasekara Reddy, G. Koteswara

Rao, Advocates, plot No. 85, road, No. 5, Kondapaneni Township, Mangalagiri,

Guntur District.

II. Description of the respondent :- 

The description of the respondent is same as shown in the above cause

title and the address for service of summons, notices etc, on the respondent is

also same as shown in the above cause title.

The appellants beg to prefer this appeal for the following amongst other

grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing;

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. The impugned order of the District Commission is contrary to law,

weight of evidence and of the case.

2. The District Commission has failed to consider the fact that the

Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the

complaint is relating to a open site. The complainant has to approach the civil

court for proper remedy.

3. The District Commission has failed to consider the fact that the complaint

is barred by limitation as the complainant made last payment on05-12-2016 and

the complaint is filed in the year 2019 which is clearly barred by limitation.

4. The District Commission has failed to consider the fact that there is no

cause of action to file the complaint against the appellants as the complainant

alleged that the opposite parties are not having any approved layout. The

opposite parties to disprove the contention of the complainant filed the

approved layout issued by the Government which clearly established that the

complainant made false allegations against the opposite parties.

5. The District Commission has failed to see that there is no deficiency of

service on the part of the opposite parties and there is no cause of action to

file the complaint against the opposite parties. As the opposite parties after

completion of all the norms for approval of layout. As the complainant failed

to pay the entire amount to the opposite parties he cannot get any relief as

the latches is on the part of the complainant.

6. The District Commission has failed to observe that the decisions

submitted by the complainant is relating to the sale of developed plot /

construction. In the present case it is relating to an open space. The District

Commission failed to analyze the issue that the case is relating to sale of land

simplicitor or sale of fully developed plot.

7. The District Commission instead of dismissing the complaint allowed the

same without any valid reasons allowed the same without properly

appreciating the evidence on record passed the impugned orders without any

basis or grounds on a perversive manner.

8. The reasons assigned by the lower court not in accordance with law and

against the natural justice.

   Therefore the appellants pray that the Honourable Commission may

be pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur passed in C.C.No. 159 of

2019 dated 20-09-2022 by dismissing the complaint and pass such other order

or orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest

of justice and equity and under the circumstances of the case.

Vijayawada,

07-11-2022.                      Counsel for appellants.