(Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President)
Aggrieved by the order of C.C.No.63/2009 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District, the opposite parties preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the absolute owner of Unit No.D11-E/06/03 in VI floor, Block VISTA Diu 1 admeasuring 1380 sq. ft. along with undivided share of land admeasuring 56 sq. yds. situated at Raintree park in Sy.No.1009/1 (part) adjacent to Phase V, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72 having purchased the same from opposite parties vide sale deed dated 27-4-2007. The complainant submitted that he paid Rs.2,75,646/- to the opposite parties towards advance booking on 13-3-2006 and on 06-4-2006, the opposite parties issued a letter informing the complainant the mode of payment and the complainant accordingly paid the payments to the opposite party. The complainant submitted that he agreed to purchase Car Parking but the same was not mentioned in the letter dated 06-4-2006 but he paid Rs.26,010/- to the opposite party for external covered car parking space on 06-8-2007 and though the entire charges were paid, the car parking was not allotted him. The complainant submitted due to non allotment of car parking, he is troubled in his day today affairs apart from financial loss and when the flat is given on rent, the tenant is paying only Rs.3000/- which is low when compared to the other units. The complainant also submitted that the opposite parties failed to provide gas pipe line to his unit and hence he got issued a legal notice on 27-12-2008 for which there was no reply . Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainant for the external covered car parking and put the complainant in physical possession of the same with specific boundaries and measurements, to provide gas pipe line connection to the unit of the complainant and pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards damages.
Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit resisting the complaint. They submitted that they have constructed 37 Residential Blocks consisting of 2 Bed room, 3 bed room, 4 bed room apartments and the township is named as âRain Tree parkâ with green zones internal roads and street lights, water fountains, fire fighting system, court yards, rock gardens, reflexology park, benches, walking way etc., They admitted that the complainant approached opposite party No.1 for purchase of flat DII-E/06/03 in VI floor, Block Vista Diu with built up area of 1390 sq. ft and took possession of the same by signing the satisfaction letter and thereafter started frivolous allegations with malafide intention. They submitted that due to high rise building, the stilt car parking spaces were not sufficient to the needs of unit owners in each block and therefore they made an application for GHMC for approval, and GHMC vide letter NO.1101/1/WZ/TPS/KKP/GHMC/2008 RTP-1 Township mentioned the rate for external car parking Rs.25,000/- + taxes however, many residents of block wise associations, objected for the marking and constructing of car parking and while proceeding with the construction, telegrams were sent to GHMC and therefore after obtaining NOC from the residents of duplex DG Blocks, opposite party No.1 started constructing sheds in DG Block areas to fulfil the promise of car parking for the owners of units and the allotment also has been completed by numbering bays for all D.G. units owners who paid the charges for car parking. At the time of purchase of flat by the complainant, the car parking was sold out, so he opted for external car parking and hence the issue of car parking was not mentioned in the sale deed. Regarding the gas pipe connection, though initially it was not planned but due to demand from purchasers, the facility was offered by BPCL for nominal price of Rs.10,000/- collected from each apartment. However, the supply of gas was not done through piped gas system due to pending approvals from various departments like Fire Department, Police, Roads and Buildings, MRO files, HUDA and Kukatpally MCH and is pending till today. The opposite parties submit that some of the residents are objecting for the works being done by OP 1 and therefore at this juncture, the complainant cannot claim the said relief as they have never made the unconditional promises regarding car parking still they are trying for allotment of car parking and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.B1 to B6 and the pleadings put forward, allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties to arrange car parking external to the complainants unit by taking Rs.26,010/- from the complainant and the complainant was directed to pay the said amount within 30 days from the date of the order and the opposite parties were further directed to return Rs.10,000/- to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint i.e. 31-3-2009 till realization.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief points that falls for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite parties and if the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for in the complaint?
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant is the owner of Unit No.D11-E/06/03 in VI floor, Block VISTA Die 1 admeasuring 1380 sq. ft. along with undivided share of land admeasuring 56 sq. yds. situated at Raintree park in Sy.No.1009/1 (part) adjacent to Phase V, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72 having purchased the same from opposite parties vide sale deed dated 27-4-2007. It is the complainants case that he was not allotted external car parking and gas pipe line to his flat.
The appellants/opposite parties submit that the as per the letter of allotment/agreement of sale dated 06-4-2006, the complainant has to pay additionally for the car parking and the complainant did not chose to pay for the car parking immediately and by the time of his request, covered car parks were sold out and at the request of flat owners, it has taken up construction of sheltered car parking and had collected nominal charges towards the cost of construction of the same and at no point of time had granted allotment of car parking to the complainant and also stated that the construction of additional external covered car parking will be taken up subject to approval from all the concerned authorities. The opposite parties further submit that they have executed construction of external covered car parking and already handed over the same to allottees of Diego Gracia and Andaman blocks as the flat owners of these blocks have given NOC for such construction whereas in Nicobar Daman and Diu the flat owners have objected for construction of external covered car parking and as such construction work could not be taken up.
The counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that on 06-8-2007 an amount of Rs.26,010/- was paid to the appellants for external car parking and has filed proof by way of additional evidence marked as Exs.A1 to A4. A4 is the sale deed dated 27-4-2007 in which an amount of Rs.11,45,920/- was paid for the undivided share of land of 56 sq. yds. and the area of the flat being 1380. Thereafter an agreement was entered into for an amount of Rs.16,14,080/- for a semi-finished flat including common areas and balconies. As per Section 3 (d) of The Andhra Pradesh Apartments (PROMOTION OF CONSTRUCTION AND. OWNERSHIP) Act, 1987 state that common areas include car parking also. Even otherwise, Ex.A1 shows that an amount of Rs.3,15,577/- was paid towards PB6(Bal), UTC chgs, car parking chgs, SF, CF, LF and Adv Maint.-DII-E/06/03 and as it has been established that car parking charges have already been paid, hence we direct the appellants to officially allot the car parking.
However, the counsel for opposite parties submitted that the complainant is using and is in possession of an unmarked car parking space  which is also photographed and shown before this Commission. Thereafter for ascertaining the opinion of the complainant, this Commission has posted the matter under the caption of âFor being Mentioned and the complainant was present in person along with his counsel and submitted that the car parking which is shown in the photographs is very close to the duct area and is not at all conducive for car parking. Thereafter on 04-10-2013, the complainant filed a memo stating that permanent car parking is available in the township where there is a vacant area of 360 sq. yds. which is IJM ownership site for model house IJM No.2 in Sy.No.1009/1, Kukatpally, R.R.District. The complainant submits that if car parking is given in this open area, it would be conducive for him to park his car or else he seeks compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as he is not able to rent out his flat as it does not have a provision for car parking and if he could have given the flat for rent, he would have earned Rs.10,000/- per month. He has also filed a rough sketch plan of the vacant area and a copy was also given to the appellants/opposite party.
We have perused the entire material on record and we are of the considered view that the appellants/opposite parties did not provide conducive car parking area to the complainant though it is stipulated as per Section 3 (d) of The Andhra Pradesh Apartments (PROMOTIONÂ OF CONSTRUCTION ANDÂ OWNERSHIP) Act, 1987 which states that common areas include car parking also therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on behalf of the appellants, however, we modify the order of the District Forum and direct the appellants to allot car parking space in the vacant site of 360 sq. yds. which is IJM ownership site for model house IJM No.2 in Sy.No.1009/1, Kukatpally, R.R.District sought by the complainant in his memo for which no objection/counter was filed or in the alternative refund the amount collected towards car parking with interest at 12% p.a. from 06-7-2007 till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant for having paid for the car parking and for the deficiency in service in not allotting a conducive car parking to the complainant for which the complainant suffered opportunity loss of not being able to give his flat for rent which he submits is Rs.10,000/- per month. We also award costs of Rs.5,000/-. This amount of compensation is being awarded as an alternative for the car parking asked for by the complainant and not provided by the appellants. We confirm the order of the District Forum with respect to refund of Rs.10,000/- paid towards gas pipe line.
In the result this appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned directions.