State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. K. T Thomas And Anr vs Dheeraj Valley Bldg No.3 Chs Through Its ... on 12 May, 2026
1 CC/193/2020
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint No: CC/2020/193
1) Mr. K. T Thomas Complainants
2) Mrs. Sajita Thomas
Flat No.211 B wing, Dheeraj Valley Bldg. No.3 CHS
Mohan Gokhale Road, Near Saibaba Complex,
Goregaon (East) Mumbai-400 063
Versus
Dheeraj Valley Bldg No.3 CHS Opposite Party
Through its Chairman/ Secretary
Mohan Gokhale Road, Near Saibaba Complex,
Goregaon (East) Mumbai 400 063
BEFORE:
Ms. Poonam Maharshi, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon'ble Member.
APPEARANCE
For Complainants: Adv. U.B. Wavikar, Adv. Sajira Jondhale
For Opponent: Adv. Surve, Adv. Bedi, Adv. Kadam
JUDGEMENT
(12/05/2026) Per Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon'ble Member
1. The present Consumer Complaint No. CC/2020/193 filed by the complainants against Opposite Party under the 2 CC/193/2020 provisions of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainants have approached this Commission seeking directions against the Opposite Party for the allotment of a car parking space and compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
2. The brief facts of the case of Complainant that the Opposite Party is the society registered under Maharashtra Co- operative Society Act, 1960 and the Complainants are members and the owners of flat No. 211, B Wing, in the said society who had purchased the said flat and received the possession of the said flat on 06/05/2000.
3. The Complainants submitted that they are bona fide members of the said Dheeraj Valley Bldg. No.3 CHS since the inception of society and are regularly paying the Maintenance Bill and other charges to the society, the society is a service provider to the Complainants therefore there is a relation of service provider and consumer.
4. The Complainants submitted that since the inception of the society they requested the society to allot one car parking space, since there were car parking spaces vacant and remaining to be allotted but in spite of that the Opposite Party society failed to allot one car parking space to the 3 CC/193/2020 Complainants and failed to follow the Bye Law No.78 to 84. Therefore the Complainants were forced to park their vehicle on road outside of the society. They had written letter dated 05.09.2015 to the society regarding to cancel all the old allotments and follow the bye Law No.78 to 84 to allot car parking spaces in the society and simultaneously allot a car parking space to the Complainants. The Complainants also requested the Managing Committee to initiate proceedings and cancel all old allotments and give fresh allotments based on lottery system and frame a parking policy by adopting the society bye laws.
5. The Complainants submitted that the society had obtained a legal opinion on car parking from some Advocates that parking spaces cannot be sold by builder/flat owner supported by Supreme Court Judgment in Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd vs Panchali co-operative Housing Society ltd and said parking spaces if any allotted by the builder, after the formation of the society, the said spaces are to be taken over and cancelled by the society and re-allotted in accordance with the Bye Law no.78 84 and as there is less number of parking spaces in the said society then the given number of members. Therefore, the society has to follow the 4 CC/193/2020 Bye Law No. 80 & 82 to allot the parking spaces in the society. Complainants state that the same has not been followed & implemented till date by the Society since its formation.
6. Complainants submitted that in mid of July 2016 when they had parked their vehicle on the road outside of the society, a tree fell on Complainants vehicle, only due to sheer negligence and ignorance of the opposite party they suffered loss.
7. The Complainants submitted that as per their knowledge there are 60 car parking spaces including open and stilt in the society and there are 96 flats in the society of which more than 30 members do not have a single car. Till date society's car parking spaces are not allotted as per bye laws and the society has failed to disclose the information as to how the allotment of car parking spaces is given to members of the society. The Complainants further submitted that few of the members of the society are having multiple car parking spaces and the society has failed to provide one car parking space to the Complainants which is clear violation of Bye Laws No. 80 of the Society which is related with the eligibility for allotment of parking slots. "A 5 CC/193/2020 Member having a vehicle will be eligible to have parking slot. Normally no Member shall be eligible for being allotted more than one parking slot. The vehicles may be owned by him or allotted to him by his employer, or the firm of which he is the partner or the company of which he is the director, If any parking slots remain un-allotted for want of applicants, additional parking slots may be allotted to such Members who already have a slot allotted to them in normal course. Such allotment of additional parking slots shall be made on year to year basis, provided the same are not required by other Members, who have not been allotted even a single parking slot".
8. The Complainants submitted that 13th AGM was held on 25th September, 2016. The Complainants and other members specifically raised the issue of car parking and said parking spaces not to be sold by the members and the said open spaces were belonging to the society.
9. The Complainants submitted that the OP society had circulated a letter dated 11/03/2017 along with the 3 legal opinions of Advocate's and intimated to call the special general body meeting to take final decision on the matter 6 CC/193/2020 pertaining to car parking. But the said meeting was never called.
10.The Complainants submitted as the new managing committee took over the charge of the society, the Complainants wrote a letter to The Chairman of the society dated 09/09/2017 whereby the Complainants again raised objections on parking, even if the majority of the members are disagreeing to it and the managing committee has to keep in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has to follow the bye laws no.78 to 84 for allotment of car parking spaces in the society.
11.The Complainants submitted that in the Annual General Meeting of 2017 held on 17th September, 2017 in which the Society has arbitrarily passed an unlawful and illegal resolution to amend the society bye laws and society failed to adopt a parking policy by following the bye law nos.78 to 84 instead of it the society kept the old parking allotted by the builder and society as valid till perpetuity for the said associated flat. Which is absolutely illegal and against the societies bye laws.
12.The Complainants submitted that they wrote a letter dated 02/02/2018 to the Deputy Registrar, 'P' ward intimating 7 CC/193/2020 about the violation of bye laws no.78 to 84 by the society in its Annual General Meeting of 2017 where by the said OP society had passed an arbitrary and illegal resolution on car parking spaces.
13.The Complainants submitted that they wrote letter dated 03/02/2018 to the Secretary of the Building asking for Inspection of the details of allotment of car parking spaces & approved BMC plan in the said building. The same was denied by the society through its letter dated 17/02/2018.
14.The Complainants submitted that they wrote letter dated 22/09/2018 to the Chairman of Opposite party society raising the objection to the resolution passed on parking in Annual General Meeting of 2017 and clarifications on Minutes of Annual General Meeting if or not approved by the District Deputy Registrar.
15.The Complainants submitted that in the Annual General Meeting of 2018 held on 30th September, 2018 the Complainants objection to the earlier resolution was read out by the secretary and informed that the resolution of car parking passed in an Annual General Meeting cannot violate.
8 CC/193/2020
16.The Complainants submitted that they wrote a letter dated 18th September, 2019 to the chairman/secretary and managing committee of the Opposite party society informing about the illegal resolution being passed by them and managing committee in the 14th Annual General Meeting of 2017.
17.The Complainants submitted that they obtained a legal opinion dated 12/10/2019 from an Advocate to confirm about their rights, rules and regulations pertaining to car parking in the societies. In the said Legal opinion it explained the parking policy which is to be adopted by the society and as per MOFA, 1963 the builder was only to sell flats and he cannot sell the common areas as provided by the Judgment of "Nahalchand Laluchand Pvt. Ltd. V/s Panchali Housing Society Ltd. dated 31st August, 2010 in which it is clearly stated that the Builder is not entitled to sell the Parking Space outside the FSI consumed. The Complainants submitted that in the Annual General Meeting of 2019 held on 22th September, 2019 the Complainants letter dated 18/09/2018 was read and again the parking resolution passed in Annual General Meeting of 9 CC/193/2020 2017 was held as valid and later same draft was held as approved.
18.The Complainants submitted that from the foregoing paragraphs it is clear that the society has failed to discharge their duty and deliberately avoided to allot car parking spaces in the society till date, The Complainants have waited for years since the formation of society, for allotment of one car parking space in the society as per Bye Laws of the Co-operative Housing Society. Thus the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice under section 2(1)(g) & (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the Opposite Party is not interested in complying with the statutory provisions and to settle the legitimate and genuine demand of the Complainants and thereby are subjecting them to grave loss and hardship for no fault of their own.
19. The Complainants submitted that in view of the foregoing paragraphs, it would be just and proper as well as in the interest of justice that this Commission may be allowed the complaint and grant the relief as per the prayer of the complaints.
10 CC/193/2020
20.Upon admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the Opponent. Accordingly he appeared through counsel and filed Written Version with documents; the pleadings of both sides have been taken on record.
CONTENTION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
21.In defence, Opposite party raised objections that the present Complaint filed by the Complainant is devoid of merits, as it suffers from various facts not directly relevant to the adjudication of the parking issue raised by the Complainant, and it further suffers from a preliminary defect of having filed this Complaint with a mere apprehension that the Opposite Party i.e. Society would not allocate a parking space from the available parking spaces (open/stilt) to the Complainant.
22.Opposite party submitted that, till date, the Complainants have not made any oral request or any written correspondence addressed to the Opposite Party sharing the details of their four-wheeler to avail a parking space, either open or stilt, from the available parking spaces with the Opposite Party. Complainants have merely made allegations against the Opposite Party, and they have miserably failed to corroborate their averments pertaining 11 CC/193/2020 to making such oral or written application's for allocation of parking space to park their four wheeler in the premises of the Opposite Party.
23.Opposite party submitted that there are 98 members of the Opposite Party and an equal nos. of parking spaces (including open and stilt) available with the Opposite Party and that, in such circumstances the Complainants are denied a parking space by the Opposite Party.
24.Opposite party submitted that at para no.7 of the Affidavit of Evidence of the Complainant, a letter dated 05/09/2015 written by Complainants, addressed to the Opposite Party is misconceived, as it has been written after the Complainant No.1 had resigned as a Secretary from the then Managing Committee of the Opposite Party. It is submitted that, every member of the Opposite Party has a right to raise their grievances, and accordingly, Complainants had also raised their general grievance and complained about the parking allotments, and suggested the Opposite Party to follow the bye laws and further they demanded cancellation of all the existing parking allotments. However, the aforementioned letter cannot be treated as an application preferred by the Complainants to 12 CC/193/2020 avail a parking space in the premises of the Opposite Party, to park their four-wheeler without giving complete particulars of their four-wheeler to the Opposite Party, which is a pre-condition to avail any utility service.
25.Opposite party submitted that the Complainant No.1 was a part of the Managing Committee Meeting dated 24th March,2012, in which the Complainant No.1 along with other five members accepted the charge as a newly formed Managing Committee of the Opposite Party, from the six outgoing members. The new Managing Committee members also informed the outgoing members that, Mr. S. Chitre was to act as a Chairman and Mr. K.T. Thomas i.e. the Complainant No.1 as a Secretary and one other member as a Treasurer of the Managing Committee of the Opposite Party. That, after taking charge of the Managing Committee, vide a Managing Committee meeting dated 10th February, 2014, the Complainant No.1 while acting as a Secretary of the Opposite Party conducted the meeting covering several points, including the Parking of Flat No.701 and accordingly it was recorded in the meeting that "Mr. Chitre said that letter to be given by the new member within 15 days failing which the parking lot will be given by 13 CC/193/2020 lots." It is therefore, as the aforementioned recording of minutes took place in the Managing Committee meeting, in the presence of Mr. K. T. Thomas i.e. Complainant No.1, it is nothing but Complainant's act of acquiescence to the existing parking practice which prevailed from the date of the purchase of their Flats i.e. B-210 and B-211, and such acquiescence were in continuity even during the period i.e. 2012 to 2014 when the Complainant No.1 took charge as a Secretary of the Opposite Party. That, due to the continuing act of acquiescence on the part of the Complainants, the alleged averments against the Opposite Party by the Complainants in the Para.No.5(a) and Para.no.5(e) of their Complaint that, they were compelled to park their four wheeler outside the premises of the Opposite Party, a tree fell on the Complainants vehicle and that, such incident was caused only due to the sheer negligence and ignorance of the Opposite Party is incorrect. That the Complainants have not come with clean hands before this Hon'ble Court, as the alleged incident could be treated as a sheer ignorance and negligence on the part of the Complainants, as the Complainants ignored to prefer a written application to avail parking space for their four wheeler vehicle, which 14 CC/193/2020 could very well be attributed to their act of acquiescence of the existing parking policy. It is therefore, a damage if any caused on account of alleged tree falling incident over Complainants four-wheeler parked outside the premises of the Opposite Party by them, was caused due to the negligent act of the Complainants alone.
26.Opposite party submitted that however, in the facts of the present context and based on the documentary materials placed on record by both the parties, the unwillingness of the Complainants to prefer a valid written application to avail a parking facility, in response to the respective circulars published every year in the month of December, by the Opposite Party, thereby inviting applications from all the interested members of the Opposite Party, is nothing but Complainants act of acquiescence. That, among aforesaid reasons the present complaint is also liable to be dismissed for want of a cause of action, in other words, the present complaint is a pre-mature complaint, in the absence of a valid written application from the Complainants, and therefore, there is absence of denial on the part of the Opposite Party to allocate a parking space to the Complainants. Opposite party relied on the citation of 15 CC/193/2020 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Naren Pravin Sanghvi Vs Sunray's. Coop. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. (Revision Petition No.2238 of 2015, on 15th February, 2017 and Mrs. Jyoti Ramesh Agarwal& other V/s. Silver Riddhi Siddhi C.H.S.L. in Appeal No. A/14/845 on 12th October, 2017. With this, the Opposite party seeks a dismissal of the complaint with costs.
27.Heard the learned Advocates for the parties at length; perused the complaint with annexures, the Written Version of Opposite party, the affidavits of evidence of the both parties and the documents placed on record as well as citation of record filed by the both parties, upon a comprehensive appraisal of the pleadings, materials and submissions available, the following points arise for our determination and are answered as set out hereinafter.
SN Points Findings
1 Whether the Complainants are 'Consumers' Affirmative
under the Act?
2 Whether there is a 'Deficiency in Service' by Affirmative
the Society?
3 Whether the Complaint is maintainable before Affirmative
this Commission?
4 What order? As per final
Order
REASONS
Point No. 1
16 CC/193/2020
28. The State Commission observed that the relationship between a Co-operative Housing Society and its members is inherently that of a "service provider" and a "consumer." Under the Consumer Protection Act, "service" is defined broadly to include the provision of facilities in connection with housing. When a member pays maintenance charges, service charges, or other statutory dues to the society, they are essentially paying consideration for the management, upkeep, and equitable distribution of common amenities and services, including parking.
29. In this present case, the Commission noted that the Opposite Party's contention that the dispute is purely a matter of internal management or "housing construction" only is legally untenable. The administration of common areas and the allotment of parking slots as per the Model Bye-laws are essential services that a society is mandated to provide. The denial of these services, or the arbitrary implementation of a parking policy that favours some members at the expense of others, constitutes a "deficiency in service" as defined under Section 2(11) of the Act. Furthermore, while the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 provides a framework for internal disputes, it does not oust the jurisdiction of Consumer commission when there is a clear 17 CC/193/2020 failure to provide a service for which consideration has been paid. Therefore, the Complainants, as registered members who have consistently fulfilled their financial obligations to the Society, squarely fall within the definition of "Consumers" entitled to seek Redressal for the deprivation of their parking rights. In view of our finding given as to have point No.1 in Affirmative. Point No. 2:
30. The Commission observed that "deficiency in service" is clearly established when a Co-operative Housing Society fails to perform its fundamental duties as prescribed by its own registered Bye-laws and the settled law of the land. In this case, the Society's decision to validate "old allotments" made by the builder in perpetuity through an AGM resolution is a direct contravention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which clarified that parking spaces are part of the common areas and cannot be sold or permanently appropriated.
31. By failing to implement a fair, rotational, or lottery-based allotment system as mandated by Model Bye-laws 78 to 84, the Society has deprived the Complainants of a basic utility service
18 CC/193/2020 despite their status as long-standing members and regular payers of maintenance dues. The Commission further notes that the Society's defence regarding the lack of a formal application is a mere technicality used to mask administrative negligence. A Society is welfare oriented body and has a statutory obligation to ensure that common amenities like parking are distributed equitably. Providing multiple slots to certain members while forcing others to park on the road leading to foreseeable risks and damages is the very definition of an inadequate and deficient service. Consequently, the Society's inaction and its attempt to bypass statutory requirements through arbitrary resolutions constitute a gross deficiency in service. In view of our finding given as to point No.2, in affirmative.
Point No.3
32. The Commission observed that the complaint is fully maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, notwithstanding the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (MCS) Act, 1960. The Opposite Party's contention that the dispute should be relegated to the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act is misplaced, as the remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. While the 19 CC/193/2020 Co-operative Court may deal with the internal management and the validity of resolutions, this Commission is empowered to adjudicate upon the consequential deficiency in service arising from the Society's failure to provide essential amenities like parking.
33. The Commission further observed that the dispute is not merely a member-versus-society administrative conflict, but a consumer-versus-service provider grievance. Since the Complainants have alleged a specific deprivation of a service (allotment of a parking slot) for which they pay monthly maintenance, the cause of action squarely falls within the consumer jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Commission rejects the Society's argument that the complaint is "premature" or "barred by limitation"; the failure to allot a parking space is a continuing cause of action, as the Society has a recurring statutory obligation to ensure equitable distribution of common areas. Therefore, the Commission has the requisite jurisdiction to grant relief to the members who have been unfairly denied their rights.
34. The Society has failed in its statutory duty to frame a fair parking policy in line with the MCS Act and the Supreme Court's directives. Forcing a member to park on the road, resulting in vehicle damage, while others hold multiple slots, is a gross 20 CC/193/2020 deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. In view of our finding given as to point No.3, in affirmative. Point No.4
35. In view of our findings as to point no.1 to 3 in Affirmative, it is clear that the opposite party has committed deficiency towards the complainant. Therefore, this commission came to the conclusion that complaint is hereby needs to be partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to cancel all such allotments of car parking spaces that were "sold" or "allotted" by the builder or which violate the "one member, one parking" rule. The opposite party is directed to formulate a fresh parking policy within four months from the date of this order, strictly in accordance with Model Bye-laws 78 to 84, and allot one car parking space to the Complainants on priority, subject to the availability of slots and the Complainants providing vehicle registration details. The opposite party is directed to pay the Complainants Rs. 1.00.000/- as compensation for mental agony and the hardship caused by the denial of parking for several years. The opposite party shall pay Rs. 25,000/- towards the cost of litigation to the Complainants. The opposite party is directed to comply with this order within 60 days, failing which the compensation amount 21 CC/193/2020 shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. Hence, in an answer to point no. 4 we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The Consumer Complaint No. CC/2020/193 is partly allowed.
2. It is directed to the opposite party to cancel all such allotments of car parking spaces that were sold or allotted by the builder or which violate the one member, one parking rule.
3. It is directed to the opposite party to formulate a fresh parking policy within four months from the date of this order, strictly in accordance with Model Bye-laws 78 to 84, and allot one car parking space to the Complainants on priority, subject to the availability of slots and the Complainants providing vehicle registration details.
4. It is directed to the opposite party to pay the Complainants Rs. 1, 00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and the hardship caused by the denial of parking for several years.
5. The Society shall pay Rs. 25,000/- towards the cost of litigation to the Complainants.
22 CC/193/2020
6. The Society is directed to comply with this order within 60 days, failing which the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a.
7. The copy of the judgment be furnished to the both side free of cost.
[Ms. Poonam Maharshi] Presiding Member [Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan] Member