Panel directs Mohali builder to provide covered car parking as per pact

Chandigarh, July 4

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has directed a builder to provide second covered car parking to a Mohali resident at the designated open place as per the agreement and also pay Rs 15,000 as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

In a complaint filed through advocate Nitin Gupta, Sandip Kumar Jhamb stated that he had applied for a flat in a residential project developed by AN Builders in Mohali. The builder assured that two covered car parking spaces will be provided as per the brochure and parking layout plan. Jhamb booked a first-floor apartment for Rs 39,38,188 on March 2, 2020, and was allotted a flat along with two covered parking spaces. He alleged that the physical possession of the flat was delivered on December 18, 2020, without car parking and the OPs assured that it would be delivered on the completion of the entire project.

When the project was completed in January last year, the builder was asked to provide two covered car parking spaces. However, the OPs (builder) only provided one parking space and that too after repeated requests. The second parking space was not covered. Jhamb claimed that the acts of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Denying the charges, the OPs (builder) stated that even as per the possession letter, the complainant had undertaken that he was fully satisfied with the project. By filing the complaint, he was seeking third car parking in the open space and wanted it to be covered with a canopy too.

After hearing of the arguments, the commission observed that it stood proved on record that the OPs had undertaken to provide two covered parking spaces to the owner of flat on the first floor. One covered parking space is available in the stilt area and another in the open area, which is clear from the layout plan/map. The OPs are bound to provide the second covered parking as per the allotment letter as well as agreement and other documents. The act of the OPs in not providing the second covered parking to the complainant, certainly amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, it observed in its order.