w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s Lakshmi Adarsh Constructions & Others v/s Nataru Anil Kumar & Others

    F.A.Nos. 240 of 2014, 1227 of 2013 Against C.C. No. 122 of 2012

    Decided On, 09 November 2017

    At, Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. PATIL VITHAL RAO
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Appearing Parties: MVR Suresh, M/s. Siddharth & Co., Advocates.



Judgment Text

Oral Order : (B.N. Rao Nalla, President)

These cross-appeals, one preferred by the opposite parties vide FA No.240 of 2014 aggrieved by the order of the District Forum in directing the appellants/opposite parties to allot the car parking space to an extent of 100 sft in favour of the complainant and at the same time the opposite parties need not make any re-allotment of the car parking space for the area already allotted to the complainant is in an extent of 100 sft. while the complainant preferred appeal FA No.1227 of 2013 dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, Ranga Reddy.

2. Since both parties have preferred appeals we describe the parties as arrayed in the original complaint before the Dist. Forum for felicity of expression, and are disposed of by this common order :

3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he had purchased flat No.101 in Laxshmi Adarsh Residency, Kukatpally admeasuring 1630 sft inclusive of common area and car parking area of 100 sft from the Opposite Parties under a registered sale deed dt.31.07.2009 and according to the said sale deed he is entitled to get 100 sft of space on ground floor of the apartment for car parking. The Opposite Parties have not mentioned the allotment number in the said deed in respect of the car parking and made . numbering of the car parking lots as per their own whims and fancies. The demarcation of the parking lots carried out by the Opposite Parties is not made out properly. Moreover, there are total number of 12 parking lots for 10 residential flats in the stilt area of the apartment. Hence, it is the duty of the Opposite Parties to allot an alternate and suitable parking lot to him. He also got issued a legal notice dt.24.04.2012 to the Opposite Parties which was returned with an endorsement as 'not claimed'. The Opposite Party No.3 received notice and kept quiet. Hence the complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to carry out the re-allotment of the car parking lot and allot suitable car parking to him and to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs towards punitive damages, compensation and costs.

4. The opposite parties resisted the case contending that there is no deficiency of service on their part and they made the construction as per the norms of GHMC/HUDA. The complainant has been enjoying the car parking space from the date of the registration. The complainant is very well present in India and the present litigation is initiated by his father as GPA holder. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

5. In proof of the case of the complainant, the father of the complainant as GPA has filed his affidavit and got Exs.A1 to A8 marked while on behalf of the opposite parties, the opposite party no.2 filed his evidence affidavit and got Ex.B1 marked.

6. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.122 of 2012 by orders dated 10.09.2013 granting the reliefs, as stated in paragraph No.1, supra.

7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite parties preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It is contended by the opposite parties that the they already allotted 100 sft car parking space and handed over the same to complainant and inspite of which the complainant filed the present complaint for wrongful gain. While the District Forum observing that there is no cogent evidence on the side of the complainant to show that he was not allotted car parking space and also there is no proof that the complainant is entitled to claim damages, the complaint is liable to be dismissed but in spite of such an observation the District Forum allowed the complaint. The District Forum also failed to see that the complaint is barred by limitation as the sale deed was executed in the year 2009 and the complaint was filed in the year 2012. Hence, the opposite parties prayed to allowed the appeal and dismiss the complaint.

8. While the complainant being dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum preferred the appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It is contended that the entire dispute is pertaining to access to ingress in to the car parking lot which is hit by the dimensions which in turn causing damage to the vehicle of the complainant. Hence, the complainant prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for.

9. Counsel for opposite parties present and was heard. No representation for the complainant. The counsel for the opposite parties filed the written arguments.

10. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief.

11. It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased flat No.101 in Lakshmi Adarsh Residency admeasuring 1630 sft on the ground floor and to that effect a registered sale deed was executed dated 31.07.2009. It is also not in dispute that the complainant is entitled to the car parking space of 100 sft as per the said sale deed. The only and main grievance of the complainant is that the Opposite Parties who are the builders of the apartment have not allotted suitable car parking space to him. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the flat No.101 from the Opposite Parties under a registered sale deed dt.31.07.2009 vide Ex.A2 and as per the sale deed the complainant had purchased car parking area of 100 sft along with other built up area. It is not the case of the complainant that he was not allotted any car parking space of 100 sft, it is the case of the complainant that the entire issue is pertaining to access to ingress into the car parking lot which is hit by the dimensions which in turn is causing damage to the vehicle of the complainant. He also filed Ex.A3 photos to show that he is not able to park his vehicle in the space allotted by the Opposite Parties. The complainant at the time of allotment or at the time of making payments, the complainant has not raised any objection and took the possession of the flat. It is also not possible to order for re-allotment of parking space which is convenient to the complainant for parking pace because all the flat owners have been parking their vehicle at their respective allotted places. If the complainant had problem with the present parking space and if it is allotted to another person, the same problem would arise to another flat owner to whom the said parking space is allotted. The documents filed by the parties are also in no way helpful to decide the dispute between the parties. With regard to the limitation as rightly stated by the district Forum, the opposite parties not raised this plea in their

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

counter and even if we consider the same, the complaint is well within limitation as the cause of action continues until the opposite parties provided car parking space. 12. In view of the above discussion, it is to be held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of record, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting interference by this Commission. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration at paragraph No.9, supra, is answered accordingly. In the result both the appeals F.A.No.240 of 2014 and F.A.No.1227 of 2013 are dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy in CC 122 of 2012 dated 10.09.2013. There shall be no order as to costs.
O R