The appeal was dismissed due to the lack of adverse findings against the appellant in the prior order, affirming the right to contest future actions regarding car parking separately.

1. Heard Mr. Manish Kohli, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Advocate, for respondent-5.

2. Gautam Agarwala, an owner of Flat No.1-C, Front Block, Mangalam Apartments, has filed above appeal from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata, dated 01.10.2019, passed in CC/9/2018 Mr. Uttam Kumar Chatterjee and another Vs. Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. and others.

3. The office has reported that the appeal has been filed with delay of 504 days. The appellant has filed IA/2701/2021 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has stated that he was not arrayed as the party in CC/9/2018 and had no notice of it. On 14.10.2020, the police authorities forced the wife of the appellant to remove the appellant’s car, parked at parking slot i.e. at the north-east corner of the front block of the building Mangalam Apartments. On questioning, the police authorities informed that they were implementing the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata, dated 29.09.2020, passed in IA/315/2020 filed in EA/165/2019. Under legal advice, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.9485 of 2020, for mandamus and quashing entire proceeding of EA/165/2019 before Kolkata High Court on 19.11.2020, which was dismissed as infructuous on 24.12.2020. Then the appellant was advised to file an appeal against order dated 01.10.2019, passed in CC/9/2018. Then the appellant applied on 10.02.2021, for issue of certified copy of the order dated 01.10.2019, which was issued to him on 19.02.2021. Then the appeal was drafted and filed on 18.03.2021. The appellant had no notice of CC/9/2018. It is only on 14.10.2020, the appellant came to know about the order dated 01.10.2019. At that time Supreme Court has waived the limitation in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, due to pandemic in country, which was continuing till the date of filing of the appeal. Causes shown are sufficient. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. Mr. Uttam Kumar Chatterjee and Mrs. Anindita Chatterjee (respondents-1 and 2) filed CC/9/2018, for directing Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. and Alipore Mangalam Resident Welfare Association (respondents-3 and 4) (i) to issue specific allotment letter in respect of covered car parking space and ensure free ingress and egress of his car to that place, (ii) to issue “completion certificate” of the building, (iii) to Issue receipts of maintenance charges in every month, (iv) to issue all audited reports of the accounts of Alipore Mangalam Resident Welfare Association, (v) to remove all illegal constructions of the building beyond the sanctioned plan i.e. B.S.41 (B-IX) dated 07.10.1998, (vi) to pay Rs.4 lakhs, as the compensation for mental agony and harassment, (vii) to pay cost of Rs. one lakh, (viii) to direct Kolkata Municipal Corporation to inspect the construction of Mangalam Apartments and submit report relating to un-authorise constructions; and (ix) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The complainants stated that Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. (opposite party-1) was builder and constructed Mangalam Apartments at 33-A, Raja Santosh Road, Kolkata. The complainants purchased Flat No.4B along with one specific covered car parking area for Rs.4200000/-. While constructing the building Mangalam Apartment, opposite party-1 made a pillar in the north-east side due to which two car parking spaces as provided in the lay out plan at north-east side of Front Block was obstructed. In the sanctioned building plan, no pillar was shown in the north-east side. Due to constructing the pillar in the n