A/14/845

1/13

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI

Appeal No.A/14/845

(Arisen out of order dated 15/09/2014 In Complaint No.50 of 2013 of

Addl. District, Mumbai Suburban)

1. Mrs.Jyoti Ramesh Agrawal,

B-101, Silver Riddhi Siddhi CHS,

Road No.5, Near Acharya Garden,

Chembur,

Mumbai 400 071.

2. Mr.Yashodeep Ramesh Agrawal,

B-101, Silver Riddhi Siddhi CHS,

Road No.5, Near Acharya Garden,

Chembur,

Mumbai 400 071. …..Appellant(s)

Versus

Silver Riddhi Siddhi CHS Ltd.,

Through its Secretary Mr.Sonpal Singh Saini,

B701, Silver Riddhi Siddhi CHS,

Road No.5, Near Acharya Garden,

Chembur,

Mumbai 400 071.

.........Respondent

BEFORE: Mr.D.R.Shirasao - Presiding Judicial Member

Mr.A.K. Zade – Member

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr.D.R. Shirasao – Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the

Ld.Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,

Mumbai Suburban, dismissing complaint on 15/09/2014,

complainants have preferred this appeal.

(2)

Brief facts of the case are as under:

A/14/845

2/13

Appellants/complainants filed complaint against opponents for

providing parking space to them along with other amenities along

with costs and compensation. Complainants submitted that, they

had purchased flat No.B-101 by executing agreement on

22/01/2004. At that time the builder had promised to provide

adequate parking facility to all the flat purchasers. Complainants

submitted that the builder had allotted car parking space to

various

other

flat

purchasers

except

the

complainants.

Complainants submitted that as per provisions of Maharashtra

Ownership of Flats Act, a builder can only sell the flats and he

cannot sell the common area, open balcony space present in the

building. Complainants submitted that, all these common areas

are handed over by builder to the society of the flat purchasers.

They submitted that it is the duty of the society to provide car

parking space to all the flat purchasers uniformly. Complainants

also submitted that as per Development Control Rule, every flat

purchaser, the carpet area of whose flat is exceeding 70 sq.meters

is entitled to get one car parking space. They submitted that

carper area of flat of complainant is 88 sq. meters and hence, he is

entitled to get one car parking space. Complainant submitted that

under these circumstances they had applied to opponent society

for getting car parking space. On the application of complainants,

society had called General Body Meeting. However, the Society

had rejected the claim of complainants in respect of getting Car

Parking space in the premises of the society. Hence,

complainants submitted that they had issued legal notice to

opponent society and as society had not complied the same they

have filed this complaint. Complainants had also made many of

the allegations in respect of construction of building and

A/14/845

3/13

providing of amenities by the builder and had made the builder,

their partners as parties to the proceeding. However,

subsequently, they had deleted the builder and their partners from

the complaint and contested the complaint only against the society

in respect of getting parking space for them in the premises of the

society. As Society refused to give car parking space to the

complainants they also claimed costs and compensation from

Society.

(3)

Society contested the complaint by filing written version on

record. Initially they submitted that the complaint filed by the

complainants is barred by limitation. They submitted that

complainants were the promoters/members of the society. After

formation of society bye-laws of the society were approved in the

year 2006. Complainants were the signatories to those bye-laws

and accepted the same. At that time no parking space was given to

complainants. They submitted that, hence, fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document