Skip to main content

‘Can’t charge flat buyer extra for parking slot’ - Mumbai

Emphasising that a flat buyer cannot be charged extra for a car parking space, a consumer forum has fined a developer that committed this "unfair trade practice".

The Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum last week directed Tata Housing Development Company to refund Rs 50,000 to Ghatkopar-based Suresh Mehta and pay him compensation of around Rs 20,000.

"Car parking area is the common area of the society. Therefore, the opponent (the developer) had no right to charge any amount for the sale or use of the parking space," observed the forum. It took into consideration a Supreme Court judgment which held that a developer can only sell a flat and has no right to sell a parking space.

In his complaint, filed with the consumer forum last year, Mehta had said that he purchased on June 30, 2010, an apartment and car parking space at Betegaon, Palghar, for Rs 17.4 lakh. He maintained that Rs 50,000 was taken from him for car parking and another Rs 50,000 as clubhouse development charges.

Mehta said he came across a judgment in August 2010 that held that a builder or developer cannot sell stilt or open parking as the space is part of society common area. The verdict also held that, once the occupation certificate is issued and the society formed, the developer ceases to have any title on the open space.

Through a letter dated December 23, 2010, Mehta demanded a refund from the developer. He was told in response that the car parking was not sold; the developer said he was issued a right to use the space. Aggrieved, Mehta filed a complaint with the forum. The developer repeated its stand in the forum.

The forum said the agreement showed that the total amount paid by Mehta included charges for the parking space. "The documents on record corroborate the contention of the complainant that the flat's price was Rs 16.44 lakh and that he was required to pay Rs 50,000 for car parking space." The forum held that this amounted to an unfair trade practice.

Article referred to:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-11/mumbai/41969747_1_consumer-forum-car-parking-space-parking-slot

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more