The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) has been directed by a consumer court to repay a flat owner a total of Rs 2.1 lakh after she contested the BDAs decision to demand “unfair” car parking charges.
Apoorva S, a resident of Sharadamba Nagar, Jalahalli, was allotted a row house/villa in the city at the cost of Rs 42 lakh on August 24, 2017, but was forced by the BDA to pay an additional Rs 2 lakh for car parking and Rs 5.04 lakh for GST, which she called illogical.
Contesting that neither the BDA's advertisement nor the allotment letter mentioned these additional charges, she filed a petition with the Bengaluru Urban 3rd Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on November 18, 2021.
The BDA representative rejected all the allegations. Regarding the GST charges, he presented a writ petition pending in the High Court since 2019. He also presented the notification on car parking, which mentioned that a separate allotment letter would be issued for it, eliminating the possibility of a refund.
After examining the affidavit evidence and documents submitted by both parties, the commission found that the complainant was not obligated to pay an additional amount of Rs 2 lakh as the allotment letter issued by the BDA on August 24, 2017, did not mention any car parking charges. The charges were mentioned in a separate notification issued on November 3, 2017, which the commission found was “unfair”.
It maintained that the decision to repay the GST amount will be contingent upon the outcome of the writ petition pending before the court.
The commission noted that complete information about car parking was not provided by the BDA prior to or at the time of allotment, which amounts to a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
On July 17, the commission directed the BDA to refund the car parking charges of Rs 2 lakh and pay an additional Rs 10,000 to compensate for litigation costs and other expenses. The BDA is instructed to comply with the order within two months.
A senior BDA official told DH that they were not aware of the particulars of this case but would study it.
"We charge a fee if we provide a covered parking facility but don’t charge anything for an open parking facility. We will study this case and appeal it in the high court if needed,” said the official.