Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Appeal No.75 of 2023
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal delivered its order in Appeal No.75 of 2023 on 6 December 2023, dismissing Gorantla Geosynthetics Private Limited's appeal against the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The Tribunal upheld the refusal of compensation and interest because the appellant had not proved any loss from the changed location of two allotted car parks, while the promoter's penalty of Rs.2,00,000 remained in place.
What the case concerns
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal decided Appeal No.75 of 2023 under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The dispute concerned car parking spaces sold with apartments in the LEVEL UP project at Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, promoted by Akshaya Signature Homes Private Limited.
Gorantla Geosynthetics Private Limited had agreements dated 8 September 2018 for Flats 401 and 501, four covered car parks and a lumber room. Two car parks were to be in the lower basement, adjacent to the lumber room, and two were to be in the upper basement.
Who is affected
Appeal No.75 of 2023 directly affects Gorantla Geosynthetics Private Limited, Akshaya Signature Homes Private Limited, and the earlier allottees, Seshadri and Chandrika. It is also relevant to apartment buyers and promoters dealing with plans or agreements that identify particular parking locations.
Seshadri and Chandrika had entered into agreements on 27 April 2018 for Flat 206 and two covered lower basement car parks. The promoter admitted that a car park near the lumber room had been allotted both to them and to the appellant because of oversight and a communication gap among its employees.
Key findings
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal recorded that:
- The disputed lower basement car park had first been allotted to Seshadri and Chandrika.
- The appellant had been allotted four covered car parks and one lumber room.
- The appellant did not dispute the total number of car parks or the lumber room allotment.
- The dispute was limited to the location of two lower basement car parks that were expected to be adjacent to the lumber room.
- The promoter had tried unsuccessfully to resolve the matter by exchanging parking spaces.
- No evidence showed that the appellant suffered a financial or other loss because the two car parks were not in the agreed location.
Result and practical effect
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed Appeal No.75 of 2023 because compensation and interest required proof of loss, which the appellant had not provided. It therefore declined to interfere with the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order dated 20 July 2023.
The promoter remained liable for the Rs.2,00,000 penalty imposed for misrepresentation concerning the car park location. The Tribunal also recorded that the promoter's separate appeal against that penalty had already been dismissed on 3 November 2023.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Why was compensation refused even though the promoter admitted a mistake?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found no proof that the appellant suffered any loss from the change in the location of the car parks. Without proof of loss, it refused compensation and interest.
Was the Rs.2,00,000 penalty against the promoter cancelled?
No. The penalty imposed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority for misrepresentation remained in place, and the promoter's separate appeal against it had already been dismissed.
Did the Tribunal find that the buyer received fewer car parks than agreed?
No. The appellant did not dispute the allotment of four car parks. The dispute concerned the location of two lower basement car parks that were meant to be adjacent to the lumber room.
Did the appeal change the earlier allottees' parking allocation?
No. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal and did not direct an exchange of parking spaces. It recorded that the disputed car park had first been allotted to Seshadri and Chandrika.
