Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member

Heard Mr.R.B.Patil-Advocate for original complainant.  Mr.A.V.Patwardhan-Advocate for original O.P.no.1 and  Mr.J.M.Baphna-Advocate for original O.P.no.2.

By this common order appeal nos.1309/2009 and 1335/2009 are disposed of since they arise out of one and the same order passed in consumer complaint no.51/2009, Mr.Uday Kiran Patil v/s. M/s.Navin Vikas Pvt. Ltd. and another, dated 30/9/2009 and covers the identical facts and common issues of law.

Heard both the parties in both the appeals.  Both the appeals are admitted and heard forthwith with consent of parties.  In the instant case, Ld.counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals restricted their challenge to the direction given about car parking and the compensation awarded of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-.  Other points are not pressed.

It is revealed and emerged as an undisputed fact that respondent/original complainant has no car against which he is making grievance for making available car parking space. It is also not disputed that society is yet to be formed. It is also submitted at Bar that issue of allotment of car parking would be a domain of the Society which is to be formed and the developer has nothing to do with it.  If there is no car then issue as to making available car parking space would not arise and, therefore, certainly, this cannot be a dispute between the flat purchaser i.e. complainant and developer and builder. Further, since there is no car, to make a statement that since the car parking space is not made available or that the security officials of the builder are taking objection for parking the car and, therefore, they could not purchase the car and, as such, suffered mental agony, is a fanciful claim which is traced to un-existence cause or too remote cause, reminding the Birbal story of cooking the rice (khichadi).  In this background no compensation could be awarded holding that there is deficiency in service.  Forum below erred on this count.  As far as award of costs by the forum below is concerned, since dispute also covers the issue of forming society and issue as to execution of conveyance which the builder/developer has ignored on the lame excuse that many of the flats are yet to be sold; we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.  For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

                                                ORDER

1.     Appeal no.1309/2009 and appeal no.1335/2009 are partly allowed.

2.     Impugned order is modified.

3.     Direction as to allow the complainant to park his vehicle (which is not in existence) without any charge as well as direction to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- are set aside.

4.     Rest of the order stands confirmed. 

5.     No order as to costs.