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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more