Car Parking Spaces in Housing Societies

Today, Car parking spaces in Parel area in Mumbai cost about Rs. 20 lakhs.

Everyone knows that open and stilt car parking spaces, which do not form part of the building’s FSI, can not be sold by the builders. These belong to the Housing Society and have to be allotted as per the provisions in the Bye Laws.

Yet, builders continue to sell them. Member of the Managing Committee help the builders in this illegal activity. I really do not understand why the flat owners tolerate this sort of illegal activity.

The Supreme Court of India’s decision  in Nahalchand Laloochand P.Ltd. vs Panchali Co-Op.Hng.Sty.Ltd. order dated 31 August, 2010 is the final word on this point.I am giving a link to this decision.
Binoy Gupta
eleena100@hotmail.com

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1405290/

Builder can not make any alterations to plans shown at the time of sale

Section 7 of the  MOFA  Act are very clear. A builder can not make any additions to the plans shown at the time of sale of the flats without the explicit approval of all the flat purchasers. 

The following are the observations of the Supreme Court which have been followed by the Bombay High Court in a number of decisions.

” As stated above, under Section 7(1) after the lay out plans and specifications of the building, as approved by the competent authority, are disclosed to the flat takers, the promoter shall not make any other alterations or additions in the structure of the building without the prior consent of the flat takers.”

Decision of the Supreme Court in

M/S Jayantilal Investments vs Madhuvihar Co-Operative Housing … on 10 January, 2007

link Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1774237/

Travel Insurance

Travel Insurance

I am publishing the following news item to show the need for taking a travel insurance while travelling abroad.

It is mandatory while travelling to certain countries.
But I would advise every tourist to take one.

Its coverage is very wide and includes medical illness, hospitalization, loss of passport, missed flights, loss of luggage, etc.

 

The following is the news item published in the Times of India (Mumbai Edition)
10 October 2013

Insurer to pay Rs 3 lakh to woman who fell ill during Thailand trip
(Rebecca SamervelRebecca Samervel, TNN | Oct 10, 2013, 01.10 AM IST)

MUMBAI: An insurance company will have to reimburse a Parel-based woman Rs 3.34 lakh assured under the overseas travel insurance policy after she fell ill on a trip to Thailand in 2011.

The complainant, Anila Gupta, will also receive Rs 15,000 as compensation as the insurer, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, had failed to furnish the amount when she was hospitalized abroad in Thailand.

According to the complaint filed in the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in 2012, Gupta said she had arrived in Thailand on July 29, 2011. However, she fell critically ill and was admitted to Bangkok hospital in August 2011. Her husband sent an email to the insurance company on August 24, 2011, and registered a cashless claim. During her hospitalization, officers of the insurance company in Bangkok were in touch with the healthcare facility and paid a substantial portion of medical expenses. However, due to an erroneous interpretation, the insurer did not make full and timely payment.

The Guptas were forced to shell out Rs 3.21 lakh from their Indian bank account in September 2011. Gupta was discharged on September 26, 2011, but could not leave Thailand as the disease was contagious and continued her treatment there as an outdoor patient. After returning to India in October 2011, she submitted her claim to the insurance company. Gupta sent a notice to the insurer on March 21, 2012, to settle the claim. However, in the absence of a response she filed the complaint.

The insurer was served a notice of the complaint but remained absent. The forum then proceeded ex parte. In the forum, Gupta produced a copy of the travel insurance. During the pendency of proceedings in the forum, she told the forum that the insurer had issued her a cheque for a part of the amount claim. However, she said that since the matter was sub judice, she had not encashed the cheque. The forum held that the insurer had not responded to the complaint and hence Gupta’s version remained unchallenged. The forum held it guilty of deficiency in service.

The full text of the decision is available at the following site:


http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/21483131009162912639CC-12-127.pdf

 

Supreme Court allows Tata Power to supply electricity in South Mumbai

 

More than 5 years ago, my wife Anila Gupta, who was being supplied electricity by BEST Undertaking,  applied to Tata Power requesting them to supply electricity to her. Tata Power said they were ready to give her electricity, but BEST was not allowing them to do so on the ground that BEST had monopoly over South Mumbai.

The matter went all the way to Supreme Court of India and finally BEST  lost. By its order dated 8 May 2014, the Supreme Court broke the monopoly of BEST. My wife Anila Gupta has received the connection today.

It has been a long battle, but in the end our contention that BEST can not have monopoly has been upheld.

Binoy Gupta

 

Link to the decision:

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41519