First Appeal

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.,
3. The Branch Manager

M/s. Sreenadh Infra Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
…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,
2. Karnati Nageswara Rao, S/o. Kotaiah,

Rep. on behalf of M/s. Sreenadh Infra Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
3. The Branch Manager
M/s. Sreenadh Infra Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
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.

First Appeal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

First Appeal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

First Appeal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE THE A.

P STATE CONSUMUER COMMISSION AT VIJAYAWADA

F.A.No. / 2022

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

3. The Branch Manager

Ponnuru Ugandhar Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Subramanyam,

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

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

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

APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES UNDER

I. Description of the appellants :-

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

II. Description of the respondent :-

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

also same as shown in the above cause title.

grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing;

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

weight of evidence and of the case.

Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the

court for proper remedy.

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

opposite parties to disprove the contention of the complainant filed the

complainant made false allegations against the opposite parties.

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

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

simplicitor or sale of fully developed plot.

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

basis or grounds on a perversive manner.

against the natural justice.

Therefore the appellants pray that the Honourable Commission may

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

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

07-11-2022. Counsel for appellants.

You might also like