Sarah Builders in RR district fined Rs 1 lakh for failing to deliver second parking spot

It also directed the allotment of a second car parking slot to the complainant by marking the space

By Sistla Dakshina Murthy  Published on  10 Dec 2024 2:00 AM
Sarah Builders in RR district fined Rs 1 lakh for failing to deliver second parking spot

Representative Image 

Hyderabad: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy, has directed Sarah Builders and Developers to pay Rs 1 lakh towards compensation and Rs 10,000 as the costs to a complainant.

It also directed the allotment of a second car parking slot to the complainant by marking the space over the sump/water tank with bold letters as ā€˜FLAT NO. 501ā€™ which shall be exclusively usable by the complainant

Case details

Pinnamaneni Jaya Krishna is a techie and resident of Gayatri Nagar, Ranga Reddy district. On February 20, 2019, Jaya Krishna entered into an agreement of sale with Sarah Builders and Developers.

As per the agreement of sale, he purchased flat number 501 at Sarah Pride in Gayathri Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, for a total consideration of Rs 62.50 lakhs which includes an amount of Rs 2,00,000 specifically for a second car parking. Sarah Builders and Developers agreed to provide two car parking slots of 80 sq ft each with premium construction to Jaya Krishna.

Jaya Krishna initiated an application for a housing loan from Axis Bank on March 22, 2019, which confirmed for disbursement of the loan. On March 28, 2019, the Opposite Party executed a registered sale deed in favour of Jaya Krishna. Several times during September and October 2019, he reminded the Sarah Builders and Developers regarding the allotment of two car parking places, the pending works and to monitor the substandard work that was being done.

The opposite party stalled the second coat of paint in mid-November 2019 as the payment of Rs 2 lakhs was withheld by the bank. However, the same was paid by the cheque (dated November 28, 2019) issued by Axis Bank to opposite parties. Although the entire payment was made, there were several works still pending.

On December 5, 2019, Jaya Krishna moved to the flat belatedly as Sarah Builders and Developers had delayed completing the work. He noticed that the quality of construction was sub-standard and inferior to what was promised by the Opposite Party. On December 25, 2019, Sarah Builders and Developers had willfully allotted only one car parking to Jaya Krishna instead of two car parking spots and humiliated him by altering the facts.

Jaya Krishna even approached P Srinivasa Chary, civil engineer, chief consultant and licensed engineer of Nivas Associates. The civil engineer visited Jaya Krishnaā€™s flat on September 4, 2020, and after going through all the documents, and photos found several defects and gave a report on October 10, 2020. The complainant sent many SMS messages and WhatsApp messages to the Opposite Parties requesting them to rectify the defects and they replied vaguely without rectifying the defects.

Flat owner took extra parking space outside

As Sarah Builders and Developers have not allotted a second car parking slot, Jaya Krishna was constrained to take a car parking place on rent from June 30, 2020, by paying a monthly rent of Rs 1,200 and paying advance amount of Rs 15,000. The GHMC authorities are collecting the property tax for two car parking slots as mentioned in the sale of the complainant, even though the Opposite Parties have not allotted a second car parking slot to the complainant, hence this complaint.

In its written version, Sarah Builders and Developers stated that the complaint is baseless and misconceived. The complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the registered flat owners association. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable. Jaya Krishnaā€™s main dispute is concerning the parking spaces in the building as such relief is governed by the specific agreement between the parties and does not fall within the ambit of the CP Act 1986, hence the complainant has to approach the appropriate civil court for the relief.

The second car parking to the complainant is allotted as per the availability of space, but the complainant with the objection that it is allotted over the sump/water tank place and due to his non-cooperation with other residents, it is still lying vacant. The complainant was intimated in advance about the allotment of the second car parking subject to acceptance of other residents. After hearing the arguments from both parties, the court concluded that the second car parking space over the water tank/sump is allotted to the complainant but as it was not marked specifically, the same is not used by the complainant.

Hence, Sarah Builders and Developers were directed to mark the space in bold writing as ā€˜Flat No 501ā€™ so that the complainant can utilise the same exclusively for his car/vehicles so that other flat persons cannot use the same. The court ruled in favour of Jaya Krishna and hence ordered the Sarah Builders and Developers to provide the reliefs to him as mentioned above.

Next Story