COMPLAINTS FILED ON:17.03.2012

DISPOSED ON:30.08.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

30^th DAY OF AUGUST 2012

  PRESENT:-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                     PRESIDENT       

                      SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                           MEMBER                

COMPLAINT Nos.742/2012

O R D E R

SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

The complainant filed this complaint in person seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to hand over true/notarized copy of the original car parking document which shows the corner car parking as belonging to flat No.307 and to direct the Ops to immediately evict Mr.Raja Gogoi from corner car parking space allotted to him earlier, to paint each car parking boundaries to refund Rs.1,50,000/- collected for car parking, if they are unable to provide ‘One Covered Car Parking’,  to provide a good quality telephone wiring need to be made available into the drawing room, to pay Miscellaneous expenses incurred, for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental stress and agony.

2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:

The complainant entered into an agreement for purchase of flat No.307 at ‘Mythri Maiden’ with one covered car parking with Ops, after availing the loan from LIC.   The sale deed was executed by Ops in respect of the said flat on 14^th May 2010 with one Covered Car Parking (with the assumption that the corner car parking was allotted to flat #307).    The sale deed was signed by Mr.Bhaskar and Mr.P.S.Bhanu Kishore.   At no point of time did Mr.Bhaskar and Mr.Bhanu Kishore mention anything otherwise about the parking.   On 16.05.2010 there was also a meeting of the existing residents of the apartments.    The complainant went to park his car at the allotted location and he was surprised to see another car belonged to Mr.Raja Gogoi a resident of flat No.304 parking there, upon questioning him, he mentioned that Mr.Bhaskar has asked him to start using the said car parking.    As per the parking plan document, the corner parking was for apartment No.307 and the one next to it was for apartment No.304, Mr.Raja has refused to move from complainant car parking space and Mr.Bhaskar is refusing to hand over the car parking design document copy to him which proves the complainants entitlement to the corner car parking space.    Currently the complainant do not have a place wherein he can park his car.   The complainant has been repeatedly following up with Mr.Bhaskar on this issue but he also bluntly refused to hand over the original car parking document copy.   The complainant had sent to notice Mr.Bhaskar and on 24.01.2011, a reminder was issued on 03.02.2011 2^nd reminder via SMS giving time till 06.02.2011, later on had a telephonic discussion, where he confirmed that the complainant will get back his corner car parking space.   However he refused to hand over a copy of the car parking design document.   He kept repeating that he will only hand over these documents along with the other remaining documents when the society is formed.    The society is still not formed.  Hence, the complaint.

3. In spite of service of notice, Ops failed to appear, hence placed ex-parte.

4.In order to substantiate complaint averments, complainant filed affidavit evidence. 

5.  Arguments from complainant’s side heard.

6. We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant.  On the basis of these materials it becomes clear that on 12.04.2010 the complainant entered into an agreement to purchase apartment bearing No.307 with one covered car parking with Ops, the partners of M/s ‘Mythri Maiden’ Developers and obtained sale deed on 14.05.2010 in respect of the said apartment.   The complainant claims that the car parking slot which was allotted to him has been occupied by the owner of apartment No.304.   The complainant claims that the corner parking slot is the parking area allotted to his apartment-307 and Ops have not handed over the copy of car parking designed documents.  We are of the view that unless the said document is made available it is difficult to consider as to whether the corner car parking slot was allotted to flat No.307 purchased by the complainant.   Now the owner of apartment No.304 is making use of that corner car parking area.   Ops in order to settle the dispute ought to have provided copy of car parking document so as to know the car parking area which has been allotted to flat No.307.   By not providing copy of that document to the complainant Ops have committed deficiency in service on their part.   Further Ops ought to have clearly put the markings for each car parking with boundaries to avoid the disputes amongst the residents of apartments.   Under these circumstances, we are of the view that Ops are to be directed to provide true/notarized copy of original car parking document to the complainant.  The original documents can be handed over to the residents association after registration of the same, copy of the document can be provided to the complainant.   Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

        The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

Ops are directed to handover true/notarized copy of the original car parking design document to the complainant in respect of apartment No.307 of ‘Mythri Maiden’ and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-

This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.

Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30^th day of AUGUST 2012.)

MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT

Cs.