BENGALURU: Holding BDA responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the third Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed it to refund Rs 2 lakh levied for car parking after allotment of a villa, along with Rs 10,000 litigation expenses to the complainant, Apoorva S Kademane, residing in Jalahalli.
The commission, comprising president Shivarama K and members Chandrashekar S Noola and Rekha Sayannavar, passed the order while partly allowing the complaint filed by Apoorva. The commission said the allotment letter dated August 24, 2017, does not mention any car parking charges but subsequently, a separate notification dated November 3, 2017, was issued by the BDA commissioner, giving details about parking slots, which is unfair.
It stated that BDA’s intention was to allot available covered car parking slots for the villas, and that complete information about car parking was not provided at the time or prior to allotment. It is BDA’s responsibility to tell the consumer of any charges that will be levied at the initial stage, so the consumer can make an informed decision. Hence, the notification is against natural justice and BDA’s act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the commission noted.
The complainant claimed a refund of the amount paid towards GST to the BDA. However, BDA informed the commission that the matter is pending before the high court, and the outcome of the petition will determine its course of action.
In her complaint, Apoorva Kademane stated that they were allotted a row house or villa in the city for Rs 42 lakh, with an additional payment of Rs 91,250, totalling Rs 42,91,250. However, BDA collected Rs 2 lakh towards car parking though it is part of the villa, and Rs 5.04 lakh towards GST, which she believes to be illegal. She contended that advertisement issued by BDA did not mention any charges for car parking or GST. It was only later that BDA issued a notification regarding car parking charges. She argued that BDA had already collected VAT and other applicable government levies during construction of the house, making collection of GST duplicative.