MOHALI: A homebuyer from Mohali has lost his case before the Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) after alleging irregularities in the allotment and size of a parking space in his apartment complex.
The complainant, identified as Mr Singh, had approached Punjab RERA claiming that the parking space allotted to him was too small for his car, located nearly 150 meters away from his apartment block, and that there was no provision for guest parking within the complex. He also alleged that other residents had been given better and additional parking slots.
Dispute Over Parking Size and Allocation
In his complaint, Singh argued that the allotted parking space did not comply with the National Building Code (NBC) norms. He pointed out that while NBC prescribes a minimum size of 3 metres by 6 metres for individual car parking spaces and 2.75 metres by 5 metres for common parking, his allocated space measured only 2.2 metres by 4.1 metres.
He further contended that the available space was insufficient for maneuvering a car, stating that parking at a 90-degree angle requires at least a 6-metre turning radius, whereas only 3 metres was available in his case.
Singh also questioned the fairness of allocation, claiming that some residents appeared to have been allotted more parking slots than required. He sought equal distribution of parking spaces among all flat owners and demanded that the builder produce the officially approved parking layout.
FCRF Launches Premier CISO Certification Amid Rising Demand for Cybersecurity Leadership
Regulatory Findings and Approved Plans
The RERA Authority examined the approvals and records associated with the project. It noted that the construction approval letter issued on June 24, 2014, by the Estate Officer of GMADA, SAS Nagar, specified a parking capacity of 613 vehicles in the upper basement and 246 vehicles on the surface.
RERA also relied on the fact that both the Occupation Certificate and Completion Certificate had been issued by the competent authority in accordance with applicable laws and building bye-laws. The sanctioned plan, as approved by GMADA, recorded parking details consistent with those submitted at the time of RERA registration.
The Authority concluded that these approvals indicated that the builder had adhered to the sanctioned plan, weakening the claim that the parking layout violated prescribed norms.
Prior Settlement and Legal Limitations
The Authority further observed that Singh had already pursued his grievance through the corporate insolvency resolution process before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). As part of that process, he had sought either two designated parking spaces or compensation. His claim was settled when the new management paid him Rs 2.77 lakh under the approved resolution plan.
Legal experts cited in the matter stated that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not empower RERA to mandate reservation of guest parking, enforce equal distribution of parking spaces among flat owners, or prescribe specific dimensions for parking slots.
RERA also noted that Singh had taken possession of the apartment on November 16, 2017 without recording any protest regarding parking allocation. Given the prior settlement and regulatory approvals already in place, the Authority found no basis to reopen the issue.
In its final order, Punjab RERA dismissed the complaint, while granting Singh the liberty to approach the adjudicating authority if he wished to seek compensation for any alleged deficiency in service.
