STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.CC/19/669 Shri.Amol K. Deshmukh Flat No.504, C Wing, Sai Marigold (Phase 1) CHS Ltd.

Survey No.170, Near Kokane Chowk, Pimple Saudagar, Pune 411 027. Complainant Versus

1. Sai Marigold (Phase 1) CHS Ltd.

Through its Chairman / Secretary Survey No.170, Near Kokane Chowk, Pimple Saudagar, Pune 411 027.

2. M/s. S.S.D. Promoters & Builders SSD Promoters & Developers Shop No.4, Dwarkadeesh Complex, Shivar Chowk, Next to PNG Jewellers, Pimple Saudagar, Pune 411 027. Opponents BEFORE :

Mr.Justice S.P.Tavade, Hon’ble President Mr.A.Z.Khwaja, Judicial Member PRESENT:

For the Advocate Sajira Jondhale i/n Complainant : Advocate Uday Wavikar For the Opponent:

JUDGMENT Dated-4^th September, 2023 Per:- Mr. Justice S.P.Tavade, Hon’ble President [1] Complainant has filed this complaint against opponents claiming car parking space in the premises of Sai Marigold (Phase-I) Co-operative Housing Society. Opponent No.1 is a registered society under the Maharashtra Co- operative Society Act, 1960. Complainant is the member and owner of flat No. 504, C Wing in the said society. Opponent No.2 was promoter and builder who had completed the project and handed over the flats and open space to the opponent No.1. It is contended that the complainant was not provided with the car parking. Hence, in the month of June 2010 he was insisting the office bearers of opponent No. 1 to allot him the parking space. Since beginning the complainant used to park his car on the road outside the society. Therefore, there is always apprehension of theft and damage to the car. It is contended that at request of the complainant and other 11 Members of the society, the AGM was conveyed on 25/09/2016 wherein the grievance of the complainant and other members were placed on record. Accordingly, the minutes of AGM were recorded. It is contended that the complainant and other aggrieved members put their additional efforts to take survey with the help of the Surveyor of the entire compound and prepared a layout of the parking space alongwith proposed parking space. It is contended that as per the report of the surveyor 13 car parking could have been created near swimming pool without creating hurdle to other vehicles and the members of the society. It is contended that the said survey report was placed before the General Body Meeting of opponent No.1 on 09/04/2017, however the members of the society refused to accept the said report. It is contended that, it is the duty of the society to allot car parking space as per the Model Bye Laws of the Co-operative Housing society and to create additional parking space in the society as per the Model Bye Laws, if there are less parking space. It is contented that there is less area for car parking, then society should allot car parking on rotation basis. But the request of the complainant and other 11 members was not accepted by the opponent. It is contended that as per Model Bye Law Nos. 78 to 84 are very clear about the allotment of car parking spaces in the society. It is mentioned in above rules that if there is less area of car parking spaces available in the society, in such cases existing car parking slots shall be allocated on rotation basis. It is contended that, on the basis of Model By Laws, complainant made request to the opponent No.1, but his request was refused or denied. It is contended that, as per the report of the Surveyor, there is ample space for car parking available near the swimming pool. But the opponent No.1 failed to consider the Surveyor’s Report and rejected the prayer of the complainant. It is contended that the complainant had written to the Sub Registrar of Co-operative Society for allotment of car parking space as per the Model Bye Laws and the Sub Registrar has immediately directed Chairman/ Secretary of the opponent No.1 vide letter dated 26/06/2018 to allot car parking space as per the Model Bye Laws to the Members of the so