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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more