The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) authorities have recently upheld an order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (MSCRDC) declaring that a builder must provide space for parking of at least one vehicle to each homebuyer in a residential complex.
Prem Narain, presiding member, NCDRC, dismissed an appeal by the property developer, Saroj Sales Organisation (SSO), which had moved the consumer forum after its plea was dismissed by MSCDRC following complaints by the homebuyers, Dolly Bharucha and Aarati Chorge.
Bharucha and Chorge, who had purchased flats in “Breezy Corner”, developed by SSO, in Kandivali (West), had filed complaints in 2009 after the property developer refused to provide space for parking of their vehicles inside the residential complex.
On January 3, 2015, the district forum admitted their complaint and directed the builder to provide parking space to both the homebuyers. It also imposed a fine of Rs50,000 and litigation costs of Rs10,000 on SSO.
The builder moved NCDRC after MSCDRC authorities on June 13, 2017, dismissed its appeal, challenging the district order, and also imposed additional litigation costs of Rs 10,000.
Read also : Consumer Court Directs ICICI Bank Not To Close 7 Savings Accounts Of Panchkula Family
MSCRDC authorities maintained that a homebuyer should be entitled to a parking space for at least one car and the property developer – SSO as the case in point – must ensure the facility.
However, SSO claimed that the complainant homebuyers did not opt for any parking space at the time of booking their flats and as a result, are not entitled to the facility.
It also argued that the onus is on the residential welfare association (RWA) authorities, who are in charge of running the housing society complex, to provide the parking space to the complainant homebuyers.
Read also : ‘Never Claimed Coronil Cures COVID-19’, Says Patanjali’s CEO Acharya Balkrishna
The NCRDC authorities, however, refused to interfere with the order under challenge and upheld that the awarding of compensation and litigation costs was justified while taking into account the circumstances that led the aggrieved homebuyers to lodge the complaint.
“The complainants have suffered a lot of mental agony and harassment as they were not having any parking space. The award of compensation and litigation costs is justified,” the order stated.
Source Link
