Mumbai: Consumer Commission Orders Mulund Housing Society To Introduce Rotational Parking, Pay ₹1.5 Lakh

Mumbai, October 23, 2026: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has pulled up Mulund-based Shree Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society (CHS) for violating its bye-laws by denying eligible members access to parking spaces.

The Commission directed the society, through its chairman, Shashank Thakkar, to introduce an annual rotational parking system, rejecting its reliance on a bye-law that provides for allotment on a “first come, first served” basis.

It held that this provision cannot be read in isolation to grant permanent parking privileges to select members, particularly when the demand for parking exceeds the available spaces.

Holding the society guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission directed it to pay ₹1 lakh in compensation to the seven complainants who challenged the society’s arbitrary conduct, along with ₹50,000 towards litigation costs.

It also ordered the society to formulate and begin implementing a rotational parking policy within 60 days of receiving the order, ensuring that all eligible vehicle-owning members of the 68 flats have a fair opportunity to use the 45 available parking spaces.

Commission Rejects Permanent Parking Privileges

In an order passed on October 22, a bench comprising Presiding Member Poonam V. Maharshi and Member Dr Nisha Amol Chavhan held that the society could not create two classes of members, with “some enjoying permanent parking privileges while others were perpetually deprived of a common amenity”.

Residents Challenge Parking Allotment

The complaint was filed in 2019 by seven members of the society in Mulund East as a class action under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They alleged that despite being eligible for parking under the society’s bye-laws and development control rules, they had been denied parking spaces.

According to the complainants, the society has 68 flats but only 45 parking spaces, comprising stilt and open parking. The society had allotted all 45 spaces to selected flat purchasers after collecting deposits from them, leaving the remaining 23 members without parking facilities.

The residents said they had repeatedly requested the society to allot parking spaces on a rotational basis. They raised the issue at the annual general meeting held on September 24, 2017, but their request was rejected.

They subsequently wrote to the society in October 2017 and January 2018, seeking a system that would give every eligible member an opportunity to use the facility.

Society Cites Bye-Laws And Jurisdiction

The complainants relied on Model Bye-Law No. 81, which provides that when the number of members eligible for parking exceeds the available spaces, the managing committee must allot parking slots annually through a fair and transparent process, in accordance with the general body’s regulations.

However, at an extraordinary general meeting held on June 3, 2018, the society resolved by a majority vote to maintain the existing status quo on parking. The residents challenged this decision, alleging that the society had failed to follow its own bye-laws and had unfairly deprived them of a common amenity.

The society and several members opposed the complaint, arguing that the dispute concerned the management of a co-operative society and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

They also contended that the complaint was time-barred, as the parking allotments had been made between 2003 and 2010. Further, they argued that the complainants could not be treated as consumers because they had not paid separate consideration for parking.

Parking Spaces Are Common Areas

While referring to the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2010), the Commission observed that stilt and open parking spaces form part of the common areas and facilities. No member can claim exclusive, permanent ownership of a parking space to the detriment of other members.

Also Watch:

Commission Emphasises Fair Rotation

“The contesting opponents relied on Bye-Law No. 78, ‘First Come First Serve’. However, Bye-Law No. 78 cannot be read in isolation to create a permanent monopoly. When the demand for parking exceeds the available slots, Bye-Law No. 81 strictly mandates that the Managing Committee shall allot parking slots on an annual basis through a fair, transparent and rotational process. By permanently freezing the 45 parking slots for 45 members and passing an arbitrary resolution on 03.06.2018 to maintain ‘Status Quo’, OP No. 1 Society has acted in a highly discriminatory manner. The Society cannot create two classes of members, one enjoying permanent parking privileges and the other perpetually deprived of a common amenity. This blatant disregard for the Model Bye-Laws and principles of equity clearly establishes deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice by Opponent No. 1,” the Commission observed.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/