State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Ecstasy Projects Pvt Ltd vs Smt.Tanushree Mohapatra on 20 November, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/460/2020 ( Date of Filing : 10 Jul 2020 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 24/01/2020 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/595/2018 of District Bangalore 4th Additional) 1. M/s Ecstasy Projects Pvt Ltd Having office at: 39/4, Kishan Arcade, Ferns City Road, Doddenekundi outer ring road, Bangalore-560037 Rep.by Managing Director Rep. by GPA holder K.Sudhakar Karnataka 2. Sarada Reddy The Director, M/s Ecstacy Projects Pvt Ltd., No.113, Purva Park Brigade, Mahadevapura, Bangalore-560048 Rep. by GPA holder K.Sudhakar Karnataka 3. R.V.Subbareddy The Managing Director, M/s Ecstacy Projects Pvt Ltd., No.113, Purva Park Brigade, Mahadevapura, Bangalore-560048 Rep. by GPA holder K.Sudhakar Karnataka ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt.Tanushree Mohapatra Flat No.328, Block F, Trifecta Esplanade, Belthur, Kadugodi, Whitefield, Bangalore-560067 Karnataka ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 20 Nov 2023 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER APPEAL NO. 460/2020 1. M/s Ecstasy Projects Private Limited, Having its office at No.39/4, Kishan Arcande, Ferns City Road, Doddanekundi Outer Ring Road, Bangalore 560 037, Rep. by Managing Director Mr. R.V. Subbareddy. ......Appellant/s 2. Mrs. Sarada Reddy, The Director, M/s Ecstacy Projects Pvt. Ltd., No.113, Purva Park Brigade, Mahadevapura, Bangalore 560 048. 3. Mr. R.V. Subbareddy, The Managing Director, M/s Ecstacy Projects Pvt. Ltd., No.113, Purva Park Brigade, Mahadevapura, Bangalore 560 048. All the appellants are represented by their GPA Holder Sri K. Sudhakar. (By Sri V.S. Biju, Advocate) V/s Mrs. Tanushree Mohapatra, Flat No.328, Block - F, "Trifecta Esplanade", Belthur, Kadugodi, Whitefield, Bangalore 560 067. .....Respondent/s ORDER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.24.01.2020 passed in CC.No.595/2018 on the file of 4th Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant he booked a apartment bearing No.328 in "F" Block, 3rd Floor of the said residential apartment complex with super built up area of 1117 sq.ft. along with one covered car parking space. The complainant entered into a Sale Agreement and Construction Agreement dt.20.03.2013 for a consideration amount of Rs.37,99,890/-. Further submits that the Opposite Party executed a Sale Deed dt.05.12.2014 in favour of the complainant. The complainant taken a possession of the said apartment on 01.02.2015 by paying a full consideration amount. The Opposite Party No.1 informed to her that the parking allocation would be executed based on sequential distribution. Hence, the complainant had parked her car in any convenient parking slot available in her block. The complainant tried to communicate with the Opposite Parties on many occasions through email asking for allotment of car parking space for her block. The Opposite Party has responded to the communications stating that the allocation of parking in the 'F' block basement in which the complainant was residing was impossible and allocate parking space in the 'G' block.
3. The complainant further submitted that the allotted space was very narrow and it is impossible for the complainant to have a convenient entry and exit into that little space. The entry to the complainant's parking is at the Angle 90 degree and it is very difficult to turn the vehicle which needs a minimum turning radius of 5.2 meters. The driveway width which connects to the complainant's parking area is 3.65 meters which is very less compared to the complainant's car's turning radius. Due to this reason, the complainant is unable to take the proper turn into the parking lot and if attempted it may damage the car.
4. The complainant further submitted that the allotted car parking space there is water seepage during rainy season and during that time 'G' Block basement floor is water logged and wet and above the said car parking there are too many wires and pipelines running from the top which could cause rust and damage to the car and is a threat to life too. The complainant further submitted that as per the Construction Agreement and Sale Agreement dt.20.03.2013 executed between the complainant and the Opposite Parties also mentioned about the car parking stating that all the apartment owners would be given enough space to park their cars and they have also mentioned that no obstruction or encroachment would be caused by purchases. Even after informing the Opposite Parties about all their distress of not getting a proper car parking space, even after paying a huge consideration for the apartment, the Opposite Parties did not take any concrete steps to mitigate their inconvenience. The complainant further submitted that the BBMP bye-laws 2003 states that every apartment has to be provided enough car parking space, closed or unclosed, covered or open, but, the size of the parking should be sufficient to accommodate convenient parking and it should be connected to the driveway where the entry and exit would be easy for the vehicles. As per the BBMP Revised Master Plan, 2015, one car parking space of 2.5 m x 5.5 m each shall be provided for every dwelling unit measuring more than 50 sq.m. up to 150 sq.m. of floor area in every multi-dwelling units.
5. The complainant further submits that the attitude shown by the Opposite Parties by not allotting adequate space for car parking in the said project to the complainant who is rightfully entitled to it as per the Sale Deed and according to the specifications mentioned in the BBMP Bye-laws 2003 and the BBMP Revised Master Plan 2015, after accepting a huge amount as consideration for the said unit, caused irreparable mental agony and hardship to the complainant and her family. Hence, the complainant sent legal notice to the Opposite Parties on 30.01.2018 seeking for immediate solution. The Opposite Party had replied to the legal notice on 09.02.2018 denying the claim of the complainant stating that the said car parking space was small, congested, water logged and wet and they had followed all the specifications of the approved sanction plan. Hence, the complaint.
6. After issuance of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and filed their version and denied all the allegations made by the complainant. The Opposite Parties further submit that the complainant taken possession of the flat on 01.02.2015 after paying sale consideration amount and getting the said unit registered in her name. The complainant has purchased the flat and car parking space with her full satisfaction. Moreover after a gap of three years, the complainant has complained about the car parking pointing it out that it is small, congested, water logged and wet. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 7. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to provide car parking space to the complainant in the basement floor of 'F' block within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order along with compensation and costs.
8. Heard the arguments of both counsels.
9. Perused the appeal memo, Order passed by the District Commission. We noticed that it is an admitted fact that the respondent has purchased an apartment bearing No.328 in 'F' Block, 3rd Floor in the project of the appellants 'Trifecta Esplande' with super built up area of 1117 sq.ft. along with one covered car parking in the basement for a sale consideration of Rs.37,99,819/- and the respondent took a possession on 01.02.2015. It is also not in dispute that the Sale Agreement, Construction Agreement and also Sale Deed was executed between both the parties. The allegation of the respondent is that the Opposite Parties have not allotted the car parking as per the agreements in her block i.e. 'F' Block. The Opposite Parties have allotted the car parking on 03.08.2017 after more than two years in different block i.e. 'G' Block, but, not as per BBMP byelaws 2003 and BBMP Master Plan 2015. The allotted sites are narrow and entry and exit is very difficult. Moreover, there is water seepage during rainy season and during that time, 'G' Block is water logged and wet.
10. Per contra, the appellants contended that the respondent took a possession of the flat in the year 2015 with satisfaction. She parking the car at same place from the date of possession and after a lapse of three years, she has came up with a car parking issue. In the course of arguments, the respondent submitted that she was unable to park her car in the place allotted to her due to lack of sufficient space because there was a risk of damaging the car. Hence, she has been parking her car in others space by paying of Rs.1,100/- per month as a rent to Mr. Suprabhath Kumar and his wife Mrs. Shwetha Prakash of the Flat No.030, 'F' Block. However, once they have their own car parked the car she would be left with no space to park her car.
11. Perused the Order passed by the District Commission. We noticed that it is an evident that Ex.A-4 the letter in which the respondents sought for allotment of car parking. It is also evident that Ex.A-6 the appellants have allotted the car parking space in 'G' Block to the respondent on 03.08.2017 means the respondent was parking the car in other available parking slot from the date of possession, till the date of allotment. Further, it is evident that in Ex.A5 the respondent demanded to allot the car parking space in her own block also in that letter she stated that allotted space to her in 'G' Block is narrow and congested. These letters reveal that after the demand of the respondent several times, the appellants have allotted the car parking space to her in 'G' Block. Immediately on 16.10.2018 the respondent send a letter demanding the car parking space in her own block. However, the appellants denied the same stating that the allotment of parking in 'F' Block basement is impossible.
12. We have perused the photographs of parking space produced by the respondent and copy of the plan. We noticed that the appellants have not provided the car parking space to the respondent as per the plan. Moreover the space allotted in 'G' Block is very small and inconvenient to park the vehicle there. The respondent has purchased the apartment including one cover car parking in the basement, then it is the bounden duty of the appellants to provide car parking to the respondent in her own block as per the agreements and byelaws of BBMP. The appellants have received the full consideration amount from the respondent including car parking. However, up to 03.08.2017 they have not provided the same to the respondent. On 03.08.2017 they have provided the same, but, it is in an another block i.e. 'G' Block which is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. As per the Sale Agreement, Construction Agreement and Sale Deed, the appellants have to provide covered car parking in the basement in the building of the respondent as per BBMP byelaws. The appellants have failed to provide the same and violated the terms and conditions of the agreements and due to the inconvenience, she has been suffering a lot since 2015. Hence, the respondent is entitled for the compensation. The builder has to see that no inconvenience is being caused to any of the purchaser of the flat while allotting the parking place. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the Order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Hence, the following;
O R D E R The appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER