B VENU MADHAV Vs. CH MOHANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/O. P. No. 1 has filed this revision petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short as ' Act')challenging order dated 05.01.2007, passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short as 'State Commission') vide which appeal of respondent/complainant was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts are that respondent along with his wife purchased flat No. 208 in 1996 and occupied the same. He became a member of the Association and paid the monthly maintenance charges. Respondent's case is that all the flat owners who had cars i. e. 10 to 15, parked their cars in the parking area without any problems upto 19.7.2003. On 19.7.2003, Secretary of the Association called a meeting for allotment of car parking and the allotment will be made on lottery basis. It is the case of respondent that notice was issued to 22 persons out of 39 flat owners and other 15 members did not attend the meeting and 23 car parking places were allotted. Out of 23 car parking placed allotted, 8 flat owners had cars and 6 flat owners who were not having cars were also allotted car parking. It is alleged that reservation of common areas including car parking is illegal. Allotment of car parking spaces to the people who did not have cars, was illegal. Respondent's case is that he was having car parking right from 1996 to 20.7.2003, but as the association made irregular allotment of car parking to 23 members, he lost his physical right of car parking. As per sanction plan, the parking area is 547 sq. m (excluding passages) and if the same is divided amongst 39 flat owners, each flat owner would get 14 sq. m which is not sufficient for movement of the vehicle while parking the car, which is deficiency in service. Thus, it was prayed that car parking area be declared as belonging to all the flat owners and every flat owner including the tenant has a right to park his car in the parking areas and to grant compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony suffered by respondent.

(3.) Petitioner in its reply stated that there is no agreement or condition for providing the car parking space free of cost to the flat purchasers. Car parking space was sold to the purchasers at Rs. 25,000/-. The scooter parking space was allotted free of cost and the flat owners who paid Rs. 25,000/- were allowed to park their cars. Since, respondent had not purchased the car parking space therefore, he is not entitled to car parking space and also not entitled to seek relief for division of car parking. It is further stated that petitioner has exclusive right to sell and allot car parking to the flat owners and there is no violation of A. P. Apartment Rules, 1987. Thus, there is no deficiency of service. The complaint is barred by limitation and the same be dismissed.