ORDER

This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 16.04.2013 of the State Commission in appeal no. 89 of 2013 arising out of the Order dated 21.12.2012 of the District Commission in complaint no. 617 of 2011.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the two sides. Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 21.12.2012 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 16.04.2013 of the State Commission and the petition.

3. The matter relates to a builder-buyer dispute.

The District Commission passed its Order on contest. It ordered the opposite party builder company (the petitioner herein) to accept the balance payment of Rs. 16,25,925/- minus Rs. 3,25,185/- from the complainant (the respondent herein) and to charge interest from the complainant from the date of cancellation of the subject flat i.e. 20.06.2009 and to hand over the possession of the flat to the complainant. It also awarded compensation of Rs. 2,000.

Extracts from the appraisal made by the District Commission are reproduced below:

In the present case, main questions for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is liable to pay EDC, car parking charges, club memberships charges and as to from which date the complainant is liable to pay interest to the respondent for getting the possession of alt No. 040203.

First of all, we straightaway decide that the complainant is liable to pay External Development charges because the respondent has also no control over the External Development charges. Accordingly, it is directed to the complainant to pay external development charges to the respondent as per terms and conditions of the agreement.

Now coming to the other point whether the complainant is liable to pay club membership and car parking charges or not?

Learned counsel for the complainant while replying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2544 of 2010 decided on 31.08.2010 titled as Nahalchand Laloochand P.Ltd. Vs. Panchali Co-op Hng. Styl Ltd. has argued that it is compulsory requirement to provide for parking spaces under DCR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above judgment has held that it is, thus, clear that the promoter has no right to sell ‘stilt parking spaces’ as these are neither ‘flat’ nor appurtenant or attachment to a ‘flat’.

He further argued that the car parking charges and club membership are the hidden charges and the same were never brought into the knowledge of the complainant at any time. Rather the complainant herself vide letter dated 22.06.2007 has made a request to the respondents to remove all the hidden charges from the cost of the flat as per the terms and conditions of the contract and the respondent at their own cannot force the complainant to pay any amount under hidden charges.

So, taking into consideration the above cited judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that the complainant is not entitled to pay car parking charges and club membership to the respondent and the respondent also cannot force the complainant to pay the same. Accordingly, we direct the respondent not to charge car parking charges and club membership from the complainant.

Now coming to the other point as to from which date the complainant is liable to pay interest to the respondent for getting the possession of flat No. 040203.

Learned counsel for the complainant in the written arguments has submitted in para No. 20 that a total payment of Rs. 325125/- is deposited with the respondent for the last about six years and deposited issuance of allotment letter in favour of the complainant, the respondent has failed to offer possession of the plot and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent since they are utilizing the huge amount of the complainant without providing any services to the complainant.

This Forum has also perused the prayer clause of the complainant t