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

The Project Director, M/s. SITCO Pvt. Ltd., Kukatpally (A joint venture Between APHB and IJMII) Now represented by its company Secretary v/s Shiva K. Rao T.V. & Another

Company & Directors' Information:- B B VENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52209CT2008PTC020645

Company & Directors' Information:- S A R VENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102DL2015PTC275704

Company & Directors' Information:- SHIVA T.V. PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U32109DL1990PTC040772

Company & Directors' Information:- N J VENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101MH2008PTC186387

    F.A.No. 592 of 2011 against C.C.No. 124 of 2008 District Forum, Ranga Reddy District

    Decided On, 11 October 2013

    At, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: M/s. Indus law firm, Advocate. For the Respondents: M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President

Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.124/2008 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants are joint owners of flat No.AN4-C/01/05 admeasuring 1000 sq. feet (including common areas and balconies) in first floor, Block Vista, Andaman 4 with undivided share of 41 sq. yds. with one car parking place No.ST-10 at Raintree park in Sy.No.1009/1 (part) in (Malaysian Township) Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy district having purchased the flat under Regd.Sale deed No.3858/06 dated 25-3-2006 from APHB and SITCO and since then are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the flat. The complainants submitted that they entered into a construction agreement dated 25-3-2007 with the opposite party to purchase the completed flat with all amenities such as water, electricity, drainage and car parking which are paid separately including car parking. The construction of flat was completed in all respects and handed over possession and also marked car parking in the stilt. The complainants submit that however the parking was allotted at the opposite party choice and not followed by first cum first purchaser basis and not followed by any uniform code and serial number and due to irregularities, the car parking allotted to the complainants was on drainage pipe lines and on drainage manholes and near the duct place and under the main drainage T junction and between two pillars having width of just 8’ x 8’ and length is only 9’ feet and the passage is so congested that the car cannot be put to its place and the septic tank and drainage pipe line is always leaking and entire night water pouring on the car. The complainants submit that they informed the said fact to the opposite party but it had not taken minimum care due to which the car was damaged and the complainants are unable to park the vehicle and the parking area allotted is not sufficient and it was not fit for car parking. The dimensions of the area of parking is less than minimum required for car parking and there is a gap of only two inch in between the two pillars and door cannot be opened due to which parking of the vehicle became nightmare and is very difficult to park car in such a place which is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainants vexed with the attitude the complainants got issued a letter dated 26-11-2007 under Regd. Post acknowledgement due to the opposite party but no action was taken to allot alternate car parking at convenient place of minimum area required for car parking and thereafter got issued a legal notice on 07-1-2008 to the opposite party but it failed to take any action. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to provide sufficient car parking in stilt and egress and ingress so that the car can move all round and turned with right and left easily for parking as per first come first served basis and direct the opposite party to construct the septic tank at alternate place and pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Opposite party filed counter affidavit of its authorized signatory stating that they constructed apartments in 37 blocks consisting of two bedroom, three bedroom, four bedroom apartments and named the township as 'Raintree Park' and it is a gated community with Green Zones, vide internal roads, with street lights, water fountains, fire fighting system, court yards, gardens, rock gardens, felexology park, benches etc., It admitted that the complainants herein approached to buy a flat bearing NO.AN4-C/01/05 on 1st floor with built up area admeasuring 1000 sq. ft. in Rain Tree Park and accordingly a sale deed was executed on 25-3-2006. Opposite party submitted that it was brought to the notice of the complainants that the above project was being done in collaboration with APHB and the complainants have gone through all the documents and physically after checking the flat including car parking have agreed to purchase the same and took possession by signing a satisfaction letter and are now raising all frivolous dispute. Opposite party submitted if really they had problem with the allotted car parking, they would not have paid the sale consideration and signed the satisfaction letter. Opposite party denied that it has committed irregularities by not following uniform serial numbers and showed favouritism in allotment of car parking and denied that the complainants were allotted parking on drainage pipelines and manholes. Opposite party submitted that at the time of allotment or at the time of making payments, the complainant have not raised any objection and took the possession of the flat by signing a satisfaction letter and hence now cannot raise all the frivolous disputes. Opposite party submitted that it followed the allotment of car parking on first come first basis and in the same serial the complainant have been allotted the present car parking. Opposite party further submitted that at the request of the complainants, they provided alternative stilt car parking in the same block but the complainants refused to take the same for reasons best known to them and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A19 and B1 to B3 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to arrange Alternative car parking to the complainants as admitted in Ex.B1 letter together with compensation of Rs.2,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

FA.IA.No.339/2013 to receive documents by way of additional evidence is ordered and Exs.A20 and A21 are received on behalf of the respondents/complainants subject to proof and relevancy. FA.IA.No.338/2013 to receive document by way of additional evidence is ordered receiving Ex.B4 on behalf of the appellant/opposite party.

It is the case of the learned counsel for the appellant that an alternative car parking cannot be provided as the entire building has been taken over by the Association and filed affidavit of the authorised signatory stating that the car slot identified by the complainatn has already been allotted to one Mr.Janardhan though an alternative car parking was offered on 28-10-2008, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant did not agree for the said offer. We observe from the record that this offer has not been filed and the respondent/complainant present in person also submitted that he had never received any such offer or letter. The complainant submitted that there is a double car parking slot available and as a compromise sought a part of the double slot to park his vehicle. The counsel for the complainant filed photographs showing 703, 704 and 705 of double car parking slots and that on the rear side if half inch is levelled, two cars can be parked but the opposite party filed a counter stating that those car parking slots are not available and are already allotted to somebody else. Though the counsel for the appellant stated that no car parking slot is available, he did not file the copies of the sale deeds to evidence as to whom they have been sold. It is the complainant’s case that the car parking given to him was on the drainage pipe lines and on the drainage manholes. As per Section 3(d) of the The Andhra Pradesh Apartments (PROMOTIONOF CONSTRUCTION AND.OWNERSHIP) Act, 1987 which states that car parking is part of the common area which has to be provided by the builder to the purchaser and also it is not the case of the appellant that the purchaser did not pay for the car parking and as it is the appellant’s case that it had made an offer to provide car parking vide Ex.B1, they are liable to provide a car parking to the complainants even after several adjournments by this Commission and identification of alternative car parking by the complainant the appellant had come up with a unilateral stand that there is no car parking available. According to the appellant, the slots asked for by the complainants were already sold to third parties. It is the complainants’ case that this was done during the pendency of the case and those persons initially did not opt for car parking and later they were allotted these car parkings and relied on Exs.A21 and A22. If indeed there was no car parking available there are no substantial reasons as to why the opposite par

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ty, offer letter, way back in the year 2008 offered a car parking slot to the complainant. Ex.B1 reads as follows: Sub: Alternate Stilt Carpark Dear Sir, With reference to the above, we are pleased to inform you that as per your request we had found an Alternative car park for your unit. And the same is hereby allotted for your unit No.AN4-C/01/05 Block No.34 as marked in the plan below Followed by diagram We observe that the District Forum has awarded only Rs.2000/- towards compensation but the complainant did not choose to prefer any appeal. We confirm the order of the District Forum with respect to allotment of car parking to the complainants within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and this appeal is disposed of with costs of Rs.10,000/-. In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.