There are 95 flats, in building, 15 flats are owned by builder and his relatives. Builder has provided 47 parkings, including 2 reserved for BMC, The builder has made allotments to some members who claim to have purchased the parking slots, no mention in the flat agreements though. The mechanised parking as required as per building plan is not done. Open spaces as per plan have been encroached to provide these 47 slots. 10 parking slots have been retained by the builder.
After the registration of society, the committee has refused to take any stand, it has passed a resolution that one member will be allowed one car park, and also that the allotment done by builder will be final. The same is contradictory as number of cars are more than the parking slots. Certain members not having cars are holding allotted parking and are collecting charges from members not allotted any car parking(even some committee members have rented these). In certain cases even tourist vehicles are being parked and one member has been allotted two slots.
The committee is not ready to consider to revise the parking policy to make it on first come first serve basis, nor planning any action against the builder for providing the mechanised car parking and free up the area encroached for additional car parks.
What action can a single member take against the society/builder? Other members who have allegedly purchased parking are harassing the member asking for parking from Society.
I C Naik
1. Selling “Parking Spaces” were malpractices by most builders also supported by the Authorities and it is a real nuisance for residents. Model Bye-Laws approved by the Commissioner for Cooperation and the Registrar of cooperative societies continue to recognize builder ‘s illegally sold parking. The Bye-Laws have several provisions but seldom they help genuine members. For example have look at hidden rules in the Bye-Law No 78 reproduced below:
a. The Society shall in the General Body meeting frame and adopt Parking Rules to regulate the Parking slots, in accordance with the Act and Rules there under
b. The allotment of Parking Space shall be made by the Committee on the basis of “First Come First Served”, for available parking slots However the Member shall have no right to sell or transfer the Parking Slot allotted by the Society.
c. No Member shall be entitled to utilize more parking slots than that officially allotted to him by the Society
2. The Act and Rules have nothing to do with Parking.If at all pursuant MOFA 1963 the Supreme Court held that Parking is a common area and builder cannot sell. Even if sold the transaction is voidable at the option of the housing society.
3. The Committee can make parking policy for all parking including those sold by builder and those allotted by the Society.
4. Where majority has bought the parking the Committee can’t do much.
5. The following are clearly the evidences of deficiency in service by the Builder/Society both.
a. The builder is guilty of deficiency in services
(i) The mechanised parking as required as per building plan is not done.
(ii) Open spaces as per plan have been encroached to provide these 47 slots.
(iii) 10 parking slots have been retained by the builder.
b. The society is guilty of deficiency in services and unfair practices.
(i) The Committee is not ready to consider to revise the parking policy to make it on first come first serve basis,
(ii) Nor planning any action against the builder for providing the mechanised car parking and free up the area encroached for additional car parks.
Suggestion
It is observed that in recent years several District Consumer Forums have started hearing complaints of the members of housing societies or housing societies against builders for deficiency in services and unfair practices. The orders are also issued quite fats and it is not compulsory to engage a lawyer to argue case. Facts are to be stated and arguments are hardly necessary. So go for this.
Read more…
Pioneering Article
Against the Builder