The couple had purchased two flats in the building and were given possession on May 6, 2000. They requested the society to allot one car parking space according to the bye-laws so that they could park the vehicle provided to them by the company in which they were directors. They wrote to the society, calling upon it to cancel the previous allotments made by the builder and to allot space through draws, as prescribed under the bye-laws. They pointed out the law laid down by the Supreme Court on the subject while deciding the case of Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt Ltd vs Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
They had to park their vehicle on the road outside the society, where it was once damaged after a tree fell on it. As the society showed reluctance to hold draws, the couple pointed out that the view of the majority of members could not prevail over the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Since the society did not pay heed, the couple filed a complaint before the Maharashtra state commission. They pointed out that all members must get a fair chance to park their vehicles within the society’s premises.
The society contested the case, contending that the couple had not furnished details of the vehicle they owned and had not applied for parking, but had merely objected to the allocation already made. The society argued that the allocation of parking was proper and its refusal to allocate parking for the couple’s vehicle was justified.
The state commission, in its order of May 12, 2026, delivered by Nisha Amol Chavan for the Bench, along with Poonam Maharshi, observed that the complaint was maintainable as a member of a society paying maintenance and service charges was a consumer of the services provided by the housing society.
The commission observed that the society’s decisions and resolutions, which validated the “old allotments” made by the builder, were illegal as these perpetuated allotments made in direct contravention of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt Ltd vs Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, where it had clarified that parking spaces are part of the common areas and cannot be sold or permanently appropriated. Hence, it concluded that “deficiency in service” was clearly established as the society had not only failed to perform its duty according to its own bye-laws, but had also violated the settled law of the land.
The commission did not agree with the society’s stand that the complaint was time-barred, and held that allotment of parking space gives rise to a continuing cause of action.
Hence, the commission directed the society to cancel all the car parking allocations made by the builder, whether by sale or allotment, and ordered fresh allotments in consonance with the bye-laws within a period of four months. It also ordered the society to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and hardship, and ₹25,000 towards litigation costs. The commission granted two months for making the monetary payment, and said the amount would carry 9 per cent interest in case of delay.
The writer is a consumer activist
 "Car parking (Photo: Pexels)")