Unfair Car Parking Charges: Bengaluru District Commission Orders Bengaluru Development Authority to Refund Rs. 2.1 Lakhs

Brief Facts:

Apoorva (“complainant”) was allotted a row house in Bangalore for Rs. 42 lakhs, with an additional payment of Rs. 1,250, making it a total of Rs. 42,91,250/-. However, BDA demanded and collected an additional Rs. 2 lakhs for car parking and Rs. 5.04 lakhs towards GST, which the complainant believed to be unjustified. The original advertisement by BDA did not mention any charges for car parking or GST, and later notifications introduced these charges, leading Apoorva to argue that it was unfair. The complainant claimed that BDA had collected different GST amounts from different allottees for identical types of houses and was currently not collecting GST from anyone, contrary to government rules. The complainant then filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”) against BDA.

The complainant asserted that GST should only be calculated based on the building value, not on the land and building value as done by BDA. Additionally, the allotted car parking spaces were not registered to the allottees, raising further concerns. In defence, BDA denied the allegations made by the complainant, stating that the complainant had received an allotment letter after fulfilling all requirements, and the GST was levied in accordance with applicable regulations. BDA pointed to a pending writ petition (WP number 51001 of 2019) before the High Court of Karnataka, which addressed the demand for GST by BDA, supporting their stance. Furthermore, BDA referred to a notification issued on 3rd November 2017, which clearly outlined the car parking allocation process and the payment required for it, indicating that a refund of the car parking amount was not feasible according to their policies.

Decision of the Commission:

The District Commission ruled in favour of the complainant on the issue of car parking charges, stating that the parking area should be considered part of the undivided share, and hence the complainant was not liable to pay the additional Rs. 2,00,000/-. The District Commission further found BDA's issuance of a separate notification after the allotment regarding parking charges to be unfair and against principles of natural justice, thereby constituting a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Further, considering that there is a pending writ petition in the High Court since 2019 regarding GST charges, the District Commission refrained from making any observations on the issue of GST calculation.

Based on the findings, the District Commission allowed the complaint in part, and BDA was directed to refund the car parking charges of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant. Additionally, BDA was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of litigation and other expenses. The District Commission provided a two-month period for BDA to comply with the order, warning that the complainant could pursue further legal action if the order was not adhered to.

Case: Mrs. Apoorva S Kademan vs The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority

Case No.: CC/433/2021

Advocate for the Complainant: Party in Person

Advocate for the Respondent: Shashank S

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Full View