Latest decision on Common Space Car Parking Charges

for Original Judgment Click here >>  Judgment dated 04.03.2014

Latest decision on Common Space Car Parking Charges

Printed version of the judgment on Common Space Car Parking Charges decision is typed as follows:

Zemanta Related Posts Thumbnail

IN THE COURT OF MR. SC KHATRI, ARBITRATOR APPOINTED BY

THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI,

 B-84 (G.F.) HARI NAGAR, CLOCK TOWER, NEW DELHI-110064

 

Arb.Case No.73/GH/DR/ARB/2012-13                    Dated: 04th March, 2014

 

In the matter of

Sh. Anup Mittal (HUF)

Through Mr. Anup Mittal, Karta

R/O 561 Kanungo Apartment

71 IP extension, Patparganj,

Delhi- 110092

Claimant

VERSUS

 (1).  M/S Kanungo CGHS Ltd

Through its Hony Secretary

R/O 71 IP extension, Patparganj,

Delhi- 110092

 

(2).  Mr. JB Goel

President, M/S Kanungo CGHS Ltd

R/O 401 Kanungo Apartment

71 IP extension, Patparganj,

Delhi- 110092

 

(3).  Mr. Ramesh Aggarwal

Hony Secretary, M/S Kanungo CGHS Ltd

R/O 131 Kanungo Apartment

71 IP extension, Patparganj,

Delhi- 110092

 

(4).  Mr. KK Pandey

Treasurer, M/S Kanungo CGHS Ltd

R/O 413 Kanungo Apartment

71 IP extension, Patparganj,

Delhi- 110092

Defendants

 

AWARD UNDER SECTION 71 OF THE DCS ACT, 2003

 1. The present petition has been filed by the Claimant against imposing of “Extra Car Parking Penalty” by the Defendants.

2. The Dy Registrar (Arbitration) had heard the petition U/Sec 70 of the DCS Act, 2003 and has ordered vide his orders dated 30th October, 2013 that the petition deserves to be heard by an Arbitrator and Claim of the Claimant along with reply of the Defendants were forwarded U/Sec 71 for adjudication.

3. Both the parties were issued summons for 24.12.2013. Shri Raminder Singh Sahota, Ld Counsel appeared for the Claimant and Shri. Rajiv Vig, Ld counsel appeared for the Defendants. The Defendants and also the Claimant filed their submissions before me and proceedings were concluded after hearing final arguments cum discussions on 01.03.2014.

 

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

4. As per Claimant the Society has imposed Extra Car Parking Penalty/Charges through a resolution passed in the general meeting in September, 2005 and it continuing to demand at enhanced charges from the claimant till date in the monthly demand letters. In the last AGM held on 01.10.2012 the general meeting fixed the extra car parking charges as under:-

1st Car       – No charges

2nd Car       – Charges to be increased from Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- p.m.

3rd Car       – Charges to be increased from Rs.700/- to Rs.2500/- p.m.

4th Car       – Charges to be increased from Rs.1500/- to Rs.5000/- p.m.

5. The Defendant society in their written submission stated that DDA had allowed and approved the construction of basement in the Defendant society. The space in the basement can accommodate only 209 cars which mean one car parking space for each of 209 members of the Society. The society stated that the Claimant had been paying without any objection or protest all the charges levied by the general body meeting of the society i.e. maintenance, extra car parking charges, electricity charges since 01.10.2005 onwards. The society stated that it has not collected the money illegally. The general body is supreme body to take any decision and it is the decision of the general body meeting and therefore, it should be legally abided by everyone. The Society further stated that, the Claimant is defaulter and has not been paying any maintenance, electricity and car parking from 18.11.2012, therefore, he should not be heard in this case.

6. The Claimant stressed that the decisions of the AGM are bound to be within the framework of the laws of the land. The general meeting is not above the law. In the present decisions of the society, the decision is against the Main Objects stated in the Bye Laws of the Society and they are also against the DCS Act, 2003 and the DCS Rules, 2007. The Claimant has submitted that the Defendants have imposed Car Parking Penalty/Charges illegally. The Defendants have been increasing and demanding the charges every month and threatening to recover through legal means provided under the DCS Act, 2003. The claimant has alleged that the Defendants are not a legislature, executive and judiciary to frame laws and then recover from the Claimant and then also impose a penalty. The Defendants are bound by Constitution of India, the DCS Act, 2003, the DCS Rules, 2007 and Bye Laws of the Society registered with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies at New Delhi. None of these laws permit the Defendants to impose extra car parking charges penalty or charges on the claimant for parking his cars in the common space of the Society.

7. During the course of proceeding on 24.12.2013, the Claimant was directed to produce the membership certificate and Respondent was directed to submit Bye Laws of the society and break of Car Parking Penalty / Charges, month wise and expenses made by it on Car Parking and any other document they wish to file in support of their defence. The claimant filed all the documents but the Defendants did not file the directed information on 06.01.2014, 08.02.2014, 15.02.2014 and 01.03.2014 and due to this reason the Society has waived their rights to produce say anything as per Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

8. During the course of Arguments and also the submissions the Claimant produced the Bye Laws of the society in which the Defendants are to confine themselves to Sub para (vi) and (vii) of the Main objects of the Society. The claimant further argued that Defendants are to provide common maintenance & facilities charges only and that too they are required to estimate the expense in budget and then get it approved from the General Meeting. The Claimant further stressed that under Rule 89(7) of DCS Rules, 2007 the cost of maintenance, repair and replenishment in the common areas and facilities shall be apportioned amongst the members, the power of attorney holders and holders of conveyance deed whoever may be having occupancy rights of the plot or flat or garage etc. The claimant further stressed that under Rule 106 of the DCS Rules, 2007 the management of co-operative housing complex by the co-operative housing societies, the maintenance charges is one fund and one cannot divide the work of employees or security guards toward which function of security or care taking the expense is being made. Even the Defendant Society could not file the total amount collected from the members and expenses made by them on extra car parking penalty. Secondly, the Common Parking & garages is included in the maintenance charges as specified under Sub Para (xx) of Rule 106(5) of the DCS Rules, 2007.

9. The claimant further stressed that the Defendant Society has not even replied on account of Car Parking Penalty Charges to the application of the Claimant U/Sec 139(1) and Rule 165(1) of the DCS Rules, 2007 till date.

10. The claimant further stressed that the Defendant Society is co-operative group housing society and not a business generating income society. The claimant provided a document under which one month income only from car parking has been to the tune of Rs.1 Lac and demanded to summon the records of the society to scrutinize the records. However since the Society did not provide any documents and has waived their right, it is taken that the claim of the claimant is correct in all respects.

 

After going through all the submissions and hearing arguments of both the parties I, hereby conclude that:

 

(A)                The Car Parking Penalty/Charges imposed by the Society are illegal and therefore voidable. The Defendant Society is directed to revoke all the Car Parking Penalty/Charges imposed on the Claimant and they are to return the charges collected from the Claimant within 30 days or adjust these in further demands of the society.

 

(B)                The Defendant Society is further directed to pay interest at the rate at of 9% on all extra car parking penalty/charges collected from the Claimant, within 30 days or adjust these in further demands of the Society.

 

(C)                The Defendant Society has to pay litigation charges of Rs.11,000/- to the claimant within 30 days.

 

Given under my hand and seal on this 4th day of March, 2014.

                                                                                                                          SC KHATRI

                                                                                                                             ARBITRATOR

FURTHER UP-DATE AFTER THE ABOVE DECISION

The Society appealed against the decision of the Arbitrator at Delhi Co-operative Tribunal. After a fierce fight by Advocates on both the sides, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and has set aside the Award of the Arbitrator. Aggrieved by the Order of the Tribunal, Anup Mittal (HUF) has filed a Writ Petition in High Court of Delhi.

The team of Advocateji met the Counsel of Anup Mittal (HUF) to know his mind on this matter. Our team is well convinced with his versions and examples he gave that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal shall not stand before the Writ Petition and he will certainly win the Petition in High Court of Delhi.

On 21st December, 2015, the Ld Division Bench of Mr. Justice Geeta Mittal and Justice IS Mehta have reserved the judgment after hearing Final Arguments of Ld. Counsel Mr. Raminder Singh Sahota for the Writ Petitioner, Ld Counsel Ms. Meera Mathur for the Society & its Office bearers and Ld Counsel Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Addl. Standing Council for GNCTD (has been made a party by Ld. Div. Bench for the Registrar of Co-operative Societies).

The Ld. Division Bench has reserved the judgment and we shall publish as soon as we are able to lay our hands on it.

Hello, the judgement is delivered on 27th January, 2016. Click to read –Anup Mittal vs Kanungo CGHS Ltd

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION OR SUGGESTION, YOU MAY LEAVE A REPLY BELOW

13 Comments

  • Satya Narain Chander says:

    Your blogs are very much helping us to take up and resolve our issues with the societies. Thank you so much.

    View Comment
  • Krishanlal Bhatia says:

    Whether co-op. societies by passing resolution in their general body meeting can deny the right to owner to rent his/her aparment on rent to bachelors

    View Comment
  • bs rawat says:

    1. Dear sir,I have purchased a builder flat of 50 sq on top floor of 4th story building. Despite my request to the builder during the purchase of flat to give me roof right which he did not agreed. However, later when we all sixteen flat owners started self running society for the welfare of our men it comes to the light that builder has given two of the flat owner of top floor the roof right. please advice me how can I proceed for the case to have the roof right.

    2. Since we are running self managed society (not registered under society act) one of the uper ground floor owner have made a passage from his flat to the next building by breaking the side ball of his flat room on the pretext that he can do this since society is not registered and the next house for which he managed the passage is of his. Pleas guide me what should be done now legally

    View Comment
  • Sir,

    I had purchased, a car in Oct 2014 and had been parking in society since then. However I did not obtain the Society sticker, more so because the guards at the gate never insisted upon it.

    On 16 May 2015 the the MC issued a notice that w.e.f. 01 April
    2015,resident members will be allowed only two parking slots . Since then I have had meetings with MC and issued letters requesting them to issue sticker as my third car was bought eight months prior to the cut off date of 01 April 2015 and the new rule is being applied on me with retrospective effect.They, however ,are adamant not to issue the sticker saying why did I not obtain the sticker earlier.

    I even offered a solution that I will park two cars in my allotted (and
    paid for ) covered parking but they are still not convinced and threatening to levy penalty of Rs. 150 per day (this is usually levied on visitors cars brought & parked inside society premises on any day.)

    What is your view on my problem? Please suggest the course of action which I can pursue.

    R.S.Gahlot

    View Comment
  • R L Gupta, says:

    sir,give me suggation for 2nd car parking amount pay in welfare housing society.

    View Comment
  • Suresh says:

    1.builder can allot car parkings?
    2.society can cancel the car parking alloted by builder.?
    3.car parking allotment letter given by builder has any value legally or have no value

    View Comment
  • Vinod Passy says:

    Sir, I live in a CGHS Society in Dwarka. The President and the Secretary are never seen. due to differences, President is not attending any meeting. .secretsry is never seen. Society has not held its AGM for last two years. No one replies to written letters. society has charged me 55000 rupees for covered car parking since 1995, but parking was never allotted. Illegaly people are using that space. They do return my money. They have returned the money to two of the office bearers, secretly but do not share any information. MC is run by few members who never call for any meeting. They have sold off four vacant flats and the details were never shared. I do have many friends in Society and fight as an individual. They do not care. What should I do?

    View Comment
  • RajKumar Singh says:

    Dear Sir
    We have 2-3 member of our society out of 70 creating unnecessary issues related to there allocation of car parking and now have been able to get an order from Asst reg. for redrawn of parking after 10 year of allocation of flats. This issue was never reported by either of them till 4 years after they got possession of there flat. Now with this order we as a member want to be given a change to hear out before the redraw. can you pl. guide where can we appeal against the order so that we can be heard

    View Comment
  • ritu says:

    In my society (total 9 building constructed in 1996) (separate societies formed in 2006 for each building) around 28 people are parking their vehicles in Open Car Parking Space (which is common for all buildings/societies) but only around 18 were asked to pay for car parking
    (Rest 10 People are not paying & they say builder has allotted them open car parking space)
    when i asked committee of the Society that i want a copy of builders letters in which builder has allotted car parking space (Strangely committee say that we have seen their letters by eyes, but are not demanding a copy of these letters from them)
    can i demand photo copies of these letters from the society as i doubt about the genuineness of these letters.
    if any member gives an unregistered letter of the builder & if it is fake (not actually issued by Builder) then will it be treated as
    Invalid (Letter wont stand in court of law) or
    Illegal (such Person giving false letters can be prosecuted & sent to jail)

    What can i do in such cases, what i want everything should be legal & Transparent
    what will happen in future if society go for conveyance (will the members who claim that parking were allotted to them by builders will continue to rule that parking space & paying noting to society)

    Please kindly advice me

    Thanks & Regards

    View Comment
  • sabu says:

    sir,
    can society committee member construct extract office of society at stilt parking

    View Comment
  • g b singh says:

    I have read the judgments of the courts concerned to car parking charges on rental basis for parking additional cars in common area of the society. Please once again let me know in very brief the final result of the case.

    View Comment
  • This article is too old. The latest in this series is here:
    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19297445/

    This judgement was challenged in Delhi High Court. The court penalised the Petitioner Anup Mittal with heavy fines.

    Conclusions

    79. The petitioner is unable to point out authorisation by the society or legal right to park more than one car in the society. Even the single parking space permitted to him in the basement is on license and the petitioner does not have an ownership over any parking space. The above discussion establishes that the petitioner has no license even at all to park any vehicle beyond a single car within the boundary of the society. Such single car has also to be parked only in the basement.

    80. The petitioner cannot block any of the peripheral roads or the roads within the society by parking vehicles. The same is in violation of the sanctioned building plan.

    81. Parking of the vehicles in the open spaces is in the nature of an encroachment thereon which has to be governed by the requirement of sub- section (6) of Section 76. The General Body of the society would be competent to recover cost of the encroachment by virtue of Section 30 of the Delhi Co-operation Societies Act, 2003 and Rule 49 of the Delhi Co- operation Societies Rules, 2007.

    82. The petitioner does not point out any malafide in the decision making by the Annual General Meeting of the society. The petitioner, in fact, by his conduct would stand estopped from raising the objections, for the simple reason that he has been a part of such decision making and has ratified the imposition of the charges.

    83. The petitioner has impleaded the Society as respondent no.1. There is no basis in the writ petition for the impleadment of private respondent nos. 2 to 4. We are of the view that their impleadment was completely unnecessary for the purposes of adjudication on the writ petition. The Government of NCT of Delhi has had to expend public resources in the defence of the present case. The society has also been called upon to squander funds, which it would have collected from its members, on contesting the litigation initiated by the petitioner firstly before the Arbitrator then before the Tribunal and now in the present writ petition.

    84. In the prayer clause of the writ petition, the petitioner has had the temerity to make a prayer for a direction to the respondents to ‘pay litigation (forced litigation) expenses of Rs.2,50,000/-‘ to him whereas it is the respondents who have been subjected to the misconceived litigation at the hands of the writ petitioner. The petitioner claims to be a person of means and substance. The petitioner has quantified the expenses of litigation at Rs.2,50,000/-. We, however, propose to rationalise the costs which shall be apportioned amongst the respondents.

    85. The petitioner has wasted valuable judicial time on this completely unwarranted writ petition without any legal right or justification and must be burdened with costs.

    Result As a result of the above discussion :

    (i) The writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-.

    (ii) The costs shall be apportioned amongst each of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and the Government of NCT of Delhi at the rate of Rs.20,000/- each.

    (iii) The costs shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today.

    (iv) CM No.17225/2015 does not survive for adjudication and is disposed of in the above terms.

    GITA MITTAL, J I.S.MEHTA, J JANUARY 27, 2016

    View Comment
  • MUKESH BAHRI says:

    Dear Sir,

    Our housing society management today issued a circular to only all tenants residing in society to wef 1st Nov 2017 to park their second car on road outside the society premises gate at their own risk. The flat owners residing in society can continue to park their vehicles ( irrespective of number ) inside the compound.

    Kindly advise if the management is within its rights / bylaws / legality / to impose such order of discrimination of rights between owners and tenant ?

    warm regards
    Mukesh Bahri

    View Comment

4 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  • Maya Devi

    Dear Sir, I am very happy that your NGO is doing fantastic job for guiding people on their rights. I am very much impressed with the blogs and knowledge I have got from your web-site. I had filed a Arbitration case against Parking Charges in common space but the Arbitrator had given the decision that, the General Body is supreme and therefore, I had to keep quite. I am still paying Rs.6500/- p.m. for my 4 Cars to the CGHS in Patparganj. Now I came to know of the Verdict of the Arbitrator and want the same relief. I gave my application to my Society and they say they do not agree to this judgment. Please advice what should I do. Why cant I get the relief of this judgment ?

    View Comment
  • Jignesh Chaudhary

    I am ex-President of a co-operative group housing society in Rohini, Delhi. Parking Charges on common parking space were imposed in this society when I was the President. Later, the committee has increased the charges so much that the charges on 4th car are 4500 p.m. In total I am paying Rs.7500/- p.m. for parking my & my family’s Cars only. I want to get my money back. Can I file a case in this matter or not. Please advise.

    View Comment
  • Karthik

    Sir, I am thankful to this web site and to you for publishing such valuable information on Car Parking. Thank you again. Yours faithfully Karthik

    View Comment
  • Joseph

    Sir,
    We have done many meetings and also given legal notices to our co-operative society but they seems in no mood to work according to DCS Act and DCS Rules. Can you kindly help us in taking our legal matter with the Registrar of Co-operative society. Please give us appointment.

    View Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *