BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.118 of 2015
Date of institution: 13.03.2015
Date of Decision: 31.12.2015
Prem Kumari w/o P.D. Katyal, resident of Apartment No.103 (A-type) First Floor, Motia Construction Limited, Tower No.8, Royal Estate, Zirakpur.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Motia Construction Limited, Chandigarh-Delhi Highway, NAC Zirakpur, Punjab.
2. President, Welfare Association, Flat Owners Real Estate, Zirakpur, Punjab.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Aman Mittal, counsel for the complainant.
OP No.1 Ex-parte.
Shri Vinay Kataria, counsel for OP No.2.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
(a) provide the covered car parking facility as per re-allotment letter dated 27.08.2008 or to refund Rs.60,000/- paid for the same with interest @ 18% per annum.
(b) to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment.
The complainant had purchased apartment No.103 (A-Type) First Floor, Tower 8, Royal Estate, Zirakpur under down payment plan for Rs.17,35,111/- from the OPs. At that time also that the complainant had purchased one covered car parking from the OPs which the OPs had assured. The OPs had charged Rs.60,000/- for the covered car parking facility. At the time of taking over possession of the apartment, the car parking space has not been allotted to the complainant. The complainant requested the OPs to allot him the covered car parking but the OPs did not pay nay heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant sent representation to OP No.2 in this regard but no action has been taken till date. The complainant also sent representation to OP No.2 on 23.02.2012 but without any action. Thus, with these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. OP No.2 in its written statement has pleaded in the preliminary objections that it is not a Service Provider and it is the duty of the builder to provide and allocate the parking space to the allottees. The complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum. OP No.2 has filed a CWP No.27303 before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in which Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dera Bassi was directed to dispose of the representation. The SDM on the basis of directions of the Hon’ble High Court directed OP No.1 to provide covered/stilt parking slots to each and every household but OP No.1 failed to comply with the plans and specifications. OP No.1 has filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator GMADA against the order of SDM, Dera Bassi which is still pending. The complaint is also barred by limitation. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.2 has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.
3. As per report of India Post, the registered notice sent to OP No.1 was delivered on it on 01.05.2015. But none appeared it despite repeated calling and hence it was proceeded against exparte on 06.05.2015.
4. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-3.
5. Evidence of the OP No.2 consists of affidavit of Yogesh Sharma, its President Ex.OP-2/1 and copies of documents Mark-A, Mark-B and Ex.OP-2/2.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through written arguments filed by them.
7. The limited issue involved in the present complaint is that despite having received Rs.60,000/- for providing facility of covered car parking as per re-allotment letter dated 27.08.2008 Ex.C-1, the OPs have failed to provide the covered car parking facility to the complainant till date. As per OP No.2 being the Resident Welfare Association, it has not received any amount from the complainant for allotment of covered car parking slot and, therefore, the grievance of the complainant against it does not lie. Rather OP No.2 has already approached the competent authority under PAPRA Act i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dera Bassi for redressal of the grievance of all the members of the association. Amongst many grievances, the issue of covered car parking has also been taken up before the competent authority by OP No.2. The competent authority had passed an order dated 31.03.2014 directing the OP No.1 to provide parking slot to all the members of the association as per their entitlement as per allotment letter, within one month of the order. OP No.1 has challenged this order before the appellate authority under PAPRA Act i.e. Chief Administrator GMADA and the matter is pending before the Appellate Authority.
8. OP No.2 has further taken objection that as per re-allotment letter dated 27.08.2008 in favour of the complainant, the present complaint is time barred as the complainant has not filed the complaint within two years from the date of re-allotment letter.. The said objection of OP No.2 is devoid of any merit as the complainant is not seeking any relief against OP No.2 and against OP No.1 his grievance lies well within the terms of re-allotment letter dated 27.08.2008 as the OP No.1 has failed to show the allotment of covered car parking slot in favour of the complainant till date despite a specific order dated 31.03.2014 passed by the competent authority under PAPRA Act, 1995. Thus, there is continuous of action subsists in favour of complainant and the complaint is well within the time frame as provided under the Consumer Protection Act.
9. The complainant has proved having made payment of Rs.60,000/- for one covered car parking vide Ex.C-1 i.e. re-allotment letter dated 27.08.2008. Further the complainant has raised the issue with OP No.2 of non providing of car parking by OP No.1 vide Ex.C-2 and with OP No.1 vide Ex.C-3. Therefore, in the absence of any rebuttal from the side of OP No.1 regarding the contention of non allotment of car parking slot to the complainant against payment of Rs.60,000/- for the said purpose, we believe the version of the complainant that till date he has not been allotted the covered car parking slot despite having paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- to OP No.1 for this purpose. The act of OP No.1 is therefore, an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complaint, therefore, deserves to allowed against OP No.1 and the complainant deserves to be compensated.
10. So far OP No.2 is concerned, the complainant has neither paid any consideration nor sought any relief against OP No.2, therefore, the complaint against OP No.2 is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
11. In view of above discussion, the complaint against OP No.1 is allowed and is dismissed against OP No.2. OP No.1 is directed as under:
(a) to provide covered car parking facility to the complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which refund to the complainant Rs.60,000/- (Rs. Sixty thousand only) alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt till actual refund within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(b) to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
December 31, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
