STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI

Consumer Complaint No.CC/18/513

Mr.Ritesh Kumar

C-908, Cosmos Executive Apartment

Palam Vihar, Gurugram 122 017 ….. Complainant

Versus

Atlanta Ltd. (Through Managing Director)

Project-ATLANTA ENCLAVE

101, Shree Amba Shanti Chambers

Andheri Kurla Road, Opp.Hotel Leela

Andheri (East),

Mumbai 400059 …….Opponent

BEFORE: Justice A.P.Bhangale, President

Dr.S.K.Kakade, Member

PRESENT: Mr.Ritesh Kumar complainant in person

Mr.S.B.Prabhavalkar-Advocate for opponent

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Shri Justice A.P.Bhangale, President

1. Heard Mr.Ritesh Kumar-complainant in person as also learned Advocate

Mr.S.B.Prabhavalkar for the opponents.

2. Initially when this complaint was moved on the ground of urgency by the

complainant in person, we had agreed for final hearing by virtual Video

Conferencing but learned Advocate Mr.S.B.Prabhavalkar for the opponent

objected for final hearing by Video Conferencing on the ground that the

Consumer Courts’ Advocates’ Association (CCAA) have raised objection about

non-existence of rules for virtual hearing of the matters. We had accordingly

requested the Chief Secretary of State Government of Maharashtra, Principal

Secretary of Consumer Protection Department as also Principal Secretary of

Law & Judiciary Department of State Government of Maharashtra to note this

objection and to notify urgent rules and regulations to approve hearing of

consumer complaints by Video Conferencing so as to enable the State

Commission to dispose of the consumer disputes by hearing the complaints by

means of Video Conferencing. After we issued direction to the State

Government of Maharashtra by our order dated 19/08/2020, Learned Advocate

Mr.S.B. Prabhavalkar stated that he is ready to argue the matter. We had made

it clear by our order dated 19/08/2020 that in case no rules and regulations are

framed by the State Government of Maharashtra i.e. in the absence of response

from the State Government of Maharashtra, we shall be constrained to hear the

complaint in accordance with the law as updated by Consumer Protection Act

2019 and also rules and regulations framed by the Central Government of India

and Hon’ble National Commission. We accordingly waited for response from

the State Government of Maharashtra. However, since there was no response,

we proceeded to hear the complaint by means of virtual Video Conferencing.

We also considered the written submissions filed on record by the parties and

heard them by means of virtual Video Conferencing on 09/09/2020.

3. Now coming to the facts of the case, complainant is aggrieved by the acts of

the opponent for not providing parking amenity to the complainant in respect of

flat nos.A-803 & A-804 purchased by the complainant in ‘Atlanta Enclave’

building, Shilphata, Mumbra, Thane under registered document bearing no.8946

and 8947 dated 21/09/2012. The grievance of the complainant is that the parking

is an essential amenity which ought to be made available to the flat owners who

purchased the flats under registered document of sale. Our attention is invited

to the sanctioned plan of Thane Municipal Corporation in respect of the building

project constructed by opponent indicating that built-up area for Type B-1 and

B-2 residential flat was 4597.95 sq.ft. for 117 tenements. The approved plan

also indicated that total tenements in the project were 293 for which total

parking spaces provided were 162. According to complainant the sanctioned

plan was obtained by the complainant exercising his right under Right To

Information Act. He alleged unfair trade practice on the part of builder and

developer in the matter of non-allotment of parking spaces. He placed reliance

on the judgement in the matter of Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v/s

Panchali Co.Op. Housing Society Ltd. decided by Hon’bl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document