Facing Parking Issues in Your New Apartment? Learn from This Homebuyer’s RERA Case

When Mr. Singh purchased a flat in a new apartment complex, he anticipated a smooth and hassle-free experience. However, he soon found himself facing significant issues with the parking arrangements. The allotted parking space was not only too small for his car but was also located 150 meters away from his apartment block. To add to his frustration, there was no provision for guest parking in the entire apartment complex.

So, Mr. Singh from Mohali filed a complaint with the Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Punjab RERA). He argued that the parking space allotted to him violated the National Building Code (NBC) norms. Singh alleged that some other apartment owners had been allotted better parking spots, and even more than they needed. He pointed out that to park a car at a 90-degree angle, a minimum of 6 meters is required, but his space was only 3 meters wide.

In his complaint, Singh highlighted that the National Building Code (NBC) of India outlines the minimum dimensions for parking spaces: 3m x 6m for individual car spots and 2.75m x 5m for common car spaces. Scooter/two-wheeler spaces need at least 1.25 sq m, and bicycle spaces require at least 1.00 sq m. However, he was given a parking space measuring just 2.2 meters by 4.1 meters, making it impossible to park his car comfortably.

According to the construction approval letter (no. 16667) issued on June 24, 2014, by the Estate Officer, GMADA, SAS Nagar, the upper basement has a car parking capacity of 613, while the surface car parking can accommodate 246 vehicles. Singh demanded that the builder allocate an equal number of car parking slots to all flat owners and produce the original parking slots map approved by the relevant authority during the project’s approval process.

Despite his efforts, Mr. Singh’s case was ultimately dismissed by Punjab RERA. Zahir Tapia, an Associate at ALMT Legal, explained to ET Wealth Online that the RERA Authority explicitly stated that there is no provision in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, empowering it to direct a builder to reserve 5% common parking for guests, allocate an equal number of parking slots to all flat owners, or prescribe any specific size for parking slots.

The RERA Authority also relied on the regulatory approvals already in place. 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 from GMADA recorded parking details consistent with the details furnished during the RERA registration process, proving that the builder had adhered to the approved plan.

Additionally, Singh had already pursued his parking grievance through the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). He had made a claim before the NCLT in Puma Realtors’ CIRP, asking for either two designated parking spaces or Rs 1,50,000 towards parking, plus Rs 1,27,661 as compensation. This claim was settled when the new management paid him Rs 2,77,661 under the approved Resolution Plan.

The apartment complex was initially developed by a Delhi-based builder who later went bankrupt. The new builder, who won the bid at NCLT to take over the management, informed Punjab RERA that the project had been developed strictly according to approved plans and applicable building bye-laws. On June 1, 2021, when the NCLT approved the new builder’s resolution plan, Singh specifically requested either the allotment of two designated parking spots or Rs 1.5 lakh in compensation. He also sought Rs 1.27 lakh in additional compensation, bringing his total claim to Rs 2.77 lakh.

The new builder pointed out that during the resolution process at NCLT, Singh had already received Rs 2.77 lakh from them following the approved resolution plan. After considering the arguments, Punjab RERA held that Singh’s complaint regarding parking was not valid under RERA law. RERA also noted that Singh had accepted possession of the apartment on November 16, 2017, without any recorded protest or reservation regarding parking and could not object after so many years.

RERA further observed that under the sanction plans and applicable bye-laws, there is no mandatory requirement to earmark separate parking spaces for guests or EWS units. There is also no statutory mandate that requires the builder to equally distribute parking slots among homeowners. In light of these findings, Punjab RERA dismissed Singh’s complaint but allowed him to approach the Adjudicating Authority to seek compensation for any alleged deficiency in services by the builder.