Date of Filing:17.03.2008<br /> Date of Order:05.08.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 718 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Mr. Shravan Kumar Chhaparia,<br /> S/o Gopi Krishna Chhaparia.<br /> <br /> 2. Mrs. Ritu Chhaparia,<br /> W/o Shravan Kumar Chhaparia,<br /> <br /> Both are At No.27, Swadist,<br /> 9th Cross, J.P. Nagar I Phase,<br /> Bangalore-560 078. Complainants<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> M/s. Himagiri Group,<br /> H.No.37, Himagiri Meadows,<br /> Gottigere, Bannerughatta Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 083,<br /> Represented by its Proprietor,<br /> Sri. Bokka Poornachandra Reddy. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainants have purchased apartment bearing No.G-9 in Block-B of the building known as Himagiri Green Forest together with basement car parking space. As per the sale agreement between the parties a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been earmarked only for the purpose of car parking. Opposite party assured that sufficient car parking space will be allotted. It is submitted by the complainant that parking space allotted by the opposite party is not sufficient to park the car and it is too congested. Therefore, it amounts to deficiency in service. The complainants request to allot sufficient parking space to the opposite party has not been materialized. The complainants requested that, opposite party be directed to allot sufficient car parking space. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party has put in appearance through advocate and defence version filed contesting the claim. It is submitted that the complainants having inspected the spot and parking area reserved have voluntarily come forward and purchased the flat and they are residing therein right from October-2006 without any problem. It is impossible to provide alternative parking area to the complainants. Opposite party fully complied with the conditions mentioned in the agreement. The complainants have executed satisfactory letter dated 3/10/2006 in favour of the opposite party. This satisfactory letter is sufficient to dismiss the complaint. Opposite party has provided sufficient car parking to accommodate the vehicle. Having parked the vehicle for a period of 2 years now the complainants cannot say that parking area is congested. Therefore, the opposite parties have prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Respective parties have filed affidavit evidence. Arguments are heard. I have gone through the pleadings, documents and also the Commissioner’s report. <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:- <br /> 1. Whether there was deficiency in service <br /> on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> 2. Whether the opposite party can be directed to allot sufficient car parking area?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. The complainant got appointed Court Commissioner for spot inspection. The Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP was appointed as Court Commissioner and he after visiting the spot has submitted his report. At point No.6 of the Commissioner’s report the Commissioner has stated that the width provided for the parking of the complainants’ car is 2.45 m X 3.75 m which is not sufficient to take a turn and park the vehicle. A minimum width of 3 m to 3.5 m is required for smooth parking and taking out from the parking lot. So, as per the Commissioner’s report, it is very clear that the complainant is having parking space of 2.45 meter in width and 3.75 meter in length and the Commissioner has opined that the minimum width of 3 meter is required for smooth parking and taking out from the parking lot. The area now available to the complainant is slightly less than the area suggested by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has also submitted the parking spaces available are not uniform. The size of the parking block varies and it is not standardized. The complainants produced the copy of sale deed but in the sale deed the measurement of car parking space is not mentioned. In schedule “B” it has been stated that apartment bearing G-9 on the ground floor in Block-B of the building with super built up area of 1035 sq.ft., together with proportionate undivided share in the land comprised in schedule-A property together with basement car parking space. When this is the situation it is very difficult now to come to the conclusion that what was the area allotted to the complainant for car parking space. The complainants have taken sale deed in the year 2006 and they have also taken possession of the area available. The complainants having taken possession of the flat in the year 2006 and now after 2 years they have come to the Forum with a grievance that no sufficient car parking space is available to them. This type of dispute cannot be resolved by the Forum. The dispute requires to be settled by mutual dialogue and discussion with the opposite parties. The building having constructed and sold to the respective purchasers, the flat owners have occupied the respective apartments. At this stage in the absence of any clear cut mention of measurement of car parking area direction cannot be issued to the opposite party to provide sufficient car parking area. Apart from that the complainants have given a satisfactory letter on 3/10/2006 in favour of the opposite party. “In the said satisfactory letter they have stated that the flat is constructed as per the plan and specifications agreed between us. There are no pending works to be attended. Hereinafter words, I shall have no blame against the builder in respect of any defects in any item of work in the above flat. I shall be responsible for any future works and defects.” When this is the satisfactory letter how can now the complainants claim or complain that opposite party has not provided sufficient car parking space. Before receiving satisfactory letter the complainants could have brought to the notice of the opposite party and in the satisfactory letter they should have mentioned that the car parking space is not sufficient and subject to corrections they have taken possession of the flat. But in the satisfactory letter nothing is mentioned about the car parking space. Under these circumstances, the complainants have failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008. <br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> Rhr.<br />