Skip to main content

Builders can't sell flat's parking space separately: Consumer Forum


Mumbai: In a significant order, a consumer forum has ruled that a parking space that comes with a flat cannot be sold by the builder to a party that has not purchased the flat. The forum on Monday, directed Royal Palms (India) Pvt Ltd to pay a Juhu-based couple Rs 5 lakh as compensation for not handing over a parking space along with the flat the couple had purchased in a Goregaon complex in 2006. "Handing over possession of the parking space along with the flat is binding on the developer," said the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

In the judgment, the forum pointed out to Section 36 of the Development Control Regulations, which states that for a four-wheeler the minimum size of a parking space should be 2.5m-by-5.5m. The regulations also have a chart that specifies the parking spaces to be allotted to flats according to their size and number. "This proves that a parking space was a part of the flat and not a separate subject from the flat," the forum said. The forum added that just by handing over possession of the flat a developer cannot say an agreement has been completed.

It added that the parking space reserved for flat owners also can't be sold by the builder to anyone else. "A developer cannot sell anything other than unsold flats in a building," the forum observed.

According to the couple, Anita Gupta and Anand Gupta, they had purchased a 1,473-sq-ft flat in the developer's project at Aarey Milk Colony in 2006. The Guptas paid Rs 57.07 lakh on May 30, 2006 for the flat, which was situated on the sixth floor of the building. The developer was to hand over possession of the flat before March 31, 2007. After the agreement was signed, the Guptas paid the full amount to the developer. On July 5, 2007, the developer asked the family to take possession of the flat to complete the furnishings and other minor work, which the Guptas did.

In the complaint filed before the consumer forum on November 21, 2008, the Guptas alleged that the developer did not hand over a stilt parking space along with the flat. They also alleged that all the parking spots were sold to others. They added that they had paid around Rs 2 lakh for the space along with the flat amount, which the builder had accepted.

The developer contested the charges and alleged that the Guptas had filed a false complaint as they still had to pay some dues. The forum, however, observed that the amount due had no relation to the stilt parking. The forum observed that, in the reply to the complaint, the builder did not mention whether it had handed over the parking space to the Guptas. The forum further pointed out that the builder had only evasively stated that it had not violated any terms and conditions of the agreement. The forum said it was obvious that the Guptas were not given the parking space. The forum held the developer guilty of deficiency in service.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-04/mumbai/38277538_1_consumer-forum-parking-space-developer

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more