AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Heard Ms. Kinjal Sheth, Advocate, for the petitioners.
The above revision petition has been filed against the order of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh dated 10.11.2022 in First Appeal No.247/2021, whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
The Dr. Suresh Kumar Gupta (respondent No.1 herein) filed Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2018 with the District Commission for directing the opposite parties to (a) allow the complainant to use the common area reserved for parking in the premises of Icon Heights, RK City, Near Dhawan Palace, Ludhiana Road, Moga; (b) pay Rs.5 lakhs for mental tension and harassment, financial loss and inconvenience suffered by the complainant; (c) pay litigation cost; and (d) any other relief which the Forum deems fit and proper in favour of the complainant.
Opposite Party No.1, who is a developer, developed a residential colony “Ikon Heights”, near Dhawan Palace, Ludhiana Road, Monga. On 09.12.2014, one Ms. Preetinder Kaur Grewal purchased flat No.503, C-Block from opposite party No.1, who in turn sold said flat to the complainant, vide sale deed dated 09.06.2015. As per terms & conditions of the sale deed, all flat purchasers were given common area of 275 sq. ft. for parking use alongwith ownership rights of 1/6th area from the common area. In the sale deed, it is specifically mentioned that the flat owner will be entitled to park one car and one bike in the common area. Opposite party No.1 came with an illegal proposal to some flat owners that it is the best time to purchase the car parking space. Opposite party No.9 is the authorised person of opposite party No.1 and relative of opposite party No.2. Opposite Parties 2 to 7 claim that they have purchased the common car parking area from opposite party No.1 by paying Rs.50000/-. All the opposite parties are hands in glove. In March, 2018, put key chains and locks on the parking area and removed all the vehicles parked therein. Therefore, the complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2018 with the District Forum.
Opposite Party No.1 did not appear despite service of notice. Therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte. Opposite Parties 2 to 8 were deleted from the array of the parties. Opposite party No.9 (authorised person of the developer) filed his written statement and contested the complaint on the ground that area of 275 sq. ft. has not been earmarked as common parking area. The parking space has already been provided to all flat owners. It was also denied that opposite party No.2 has locked the car parking area. Opposite Party No.9 also took preliminary question of maintainability stating that the case requires voluminous evidence which is not possible in summary procedure of Consumer Protection Act. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The District Commission, vide order dated 29.01.2021 allowed the complaint and directed Opposite Parties to allot one car parking and one bike parking space to the complainant in the common area. The opposite parties were also directed to remove hindrance (chain and lock), if any, from the common parking area. The District Commission also granted compensation of Rs.20000/- to complainant to be paid by the opposite parties jointly and severally.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, opposite parties 1 and 9 filed First Appeal No.247 of 2021, which was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 10.11.2022. Hence, opposite parties 1 and 9 have filed the present revision petition.
The District Commission relied on clause 18 of the sale deed wherein it is mentioned that all flat owners are given common area for their usage and the flat owners have been given one marla (275 sq. ft.) parking area to park one car and one bike with rights of 1/6th from the common area. Looking into the dispute that opposite parties 2 to 7 were causing hindrance in the legitimate right of parking of the complainant, the District Commission directed the opposite parties to allot one car parking and one bike parking space to the complainant in the common area. The District Commission has granted the relief to the complainant in terms of clause 18 of the sale deed. The argument of the petitioner that the common area is used by all flat owners and no specific area can be allotted to a particular flat owner cannot be accepted for the reason that opposite parties 2 to 7 were claiming that they had purchased the parking area from opposite party No.1 and put key chains and locks on the parking area and removed all the vehicles parked therein. Therefore, the District Commission rightly directed the opposite parties to allot one car parking and one bike parking in the parking area. The District Commission has appreciated the facts in correct perspective and passed a well-reasoned order which was upheld by the State Commission. Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286, held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of facts recorded by two foras below, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. As far as argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the case required voluminous evidence which is not permissible in summary proceedings is concerned, I find that the dispute relates only to the parking area and both the Fora below have decided the same without voluminous evidence. Even if voluminous evidence is required, the Consumer Commission can entertain the complainant in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in CCI Chambers Coop. HSG. Society Ltd. v. Development Credit Bank Ltd., Appeal (Civil) 7228 of 2001.
ORDER
In view of aforesaid discussions, the revision petition is dismissed.