STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 354 of 2014
AGAINST
CC No. 256 of 2013, DISTRICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY
Between :
Smt. Swati Narang,
Titanium 105, PBEL City,
Near APPA Junction,
Hyderabad – 500 008 .. Appellant/complainant
And
Managing Director,
PBEL Property Development (India) Pvt. Ltd
Plot No. 69 and 70m, Kavuri Hills,
Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 033 ..Respondent/opp. party
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri K. Venkateswarlu
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. K. Vishweshwar Reddy
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Thursday, the Twenty Eighth Day of December
Two Thousand Seventeen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 06.06.2014 made in CC 256 of 2013 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM, Ranga Reddy.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she bought flat No. 105 from the opposite party along with two parking spaces nos. 246 and 247 and parking stickers by paying Rs.3,50,000/- separately. She had to run from pillar to post to get the parking allotment letter and received it after seven months but with different parking numbers. She also sent legal notice to the opposite party on 24.08.2013. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to issue parking allotment letter showing allotment space nos. 246 and 247, to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing harassment with costs of Rs.50,000/-.
4) The opposite party opposed the above complaint by way of written version, contending that the complainant entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 14.05.2012 in respect of flat no. 105 with them by the car parking numbers were not specifically allotted to her. They issued parking stickers for security purpose and to restrict the parking of unauthorized vehicles in the premises of the apartment. The allotment of car parking slots was not finalized to her at the time of agreement and they were tentatively allowed the complainant to park her cars in the space shown in the stickers. They finalized the allotments of parking and the car parking slots nos. 264 and 265 through their letter dated 05.01.2013. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove her case, the complainant filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-6 and Ex.B1 to B3 are marked on behalf of the opposite party. The complainant filed her written arguments. Heard both sides.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8). Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments by the respondent/OP. Heard both sides.
9) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant purchased Flat No. 105 vide Ex.A-1 Agreement of sale dated 14.05.2012 and there is also no dispute that therein it is mentioned two car parks in the parking area will be allotted as determined by the company on payment of Rs.3,50,000/-. There is also no dispute that no specific car parking slots were allotted in the said agreement. As per letter dated 05.01.2013 vide Ex.A-4 the respondent/opposite party allotted two car parking spaces bearing Nos. 264 and 265 in Stilt. The contention of the respondent/opposite party is that sticker nos. 246 and 247 vide Ex.A2 and A3 were issued for the purpose of security and to prevent unauthorized parking of outside vehicles and question of handing over the possession of the parking slot nos. 246 and 247 does not arise as the respondent/opposite party has never allotted the said parking slots to the appellant/complainant and hence the appellant/complainant is not entitled to claim parking slots of 246 and 247. As rightly pointed out by the District Forum that it is not the case of the appellant/complainant that the slot bearing nos. 264 and 265 allotted by the respondent/opposite party causing any inconvenience to the appellant/ complainant and she suffered a lot.. She accustomed to place her cars in slot nos. 246 and 247 and when she was allotted slot nos.264 and 265 she felt uneasiness and that is the main reason. It appears, the only reason is with regard to “EGO’. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/ opposite party. There are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
11). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that there are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
12). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 06.06.2014 in CC 256 of 2013 on the file of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy. There shall be no order as to cost.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 28.12.2017.
