1. Reference Agenda Item No 6 of Minutes of the Special General Body Meeting (SGBM) held on 30 August 2009. The members were offered the following two options and requested to indicate the option that according to them is correct:-
(a) Option One. Members allotted car parking space should have the right to sell the space / transfer car parking rights while selling their respective flats.
(b) Option Two. The right to transfer parking rights / allot car parking space is the prerogative of the Society and members selling their flats should surrender the space to the Society in return for the amount paid by them.
(a) Option One. Members allotted car parking space should have the right to sell the space / transfer car parking rights while selling their respective flats.
(b) Option Two. The right to transfer parking rights / allot car parking space is the prerogative of the Society and members selling their flats should surrender the space to the Society in return for the amount paid by them.
2. The members were also requested to ensure that their vote reaches the Secretary by 30th September 2009. By that date, however, only 45 votes had been received. The tally of votes and the option exercised by the members is appended below:-
(a) Total Votes received - 45
(b) Votes rejected - 6
(c) Option 1 - 17
(d) Option 2 - 22
(a) Total Votes received - 45
(b) Votes rejected - 6
(c) Option 1 - 17
(d) Option 2 - 22
3. Members desirous of viewing details of the votes received are welcome to contact the Secretary at any time convenient to them. The details of the issue and votes cast have been conveyed to the Registrar Cooperative Societies. Members selling their flats are advised not to sell the garage / transfer parking rights to the buyer as it amounts to violation of Section 89 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 2007 and will invite litigation against them.
Right decidion. No one can have a grievance.All those who are aspiring to have a garage can hope to get one sometime or other in the future.
ReplyDeleteThis is an arbitarty decision. As said above were only two options. The option 2 was: "The right to transfer parking rights / allot car parking space is the prerogative of the Society and members selling their flats should surrender the space to the Society in return for the amount paid by them." itself is debatable. It should have a provision of paying interest on the deposited amount. Further, it is quite possible that members might not have received the notices for the GBM and this election. I hope the Society would have sent the letters to the members in this regard and must be having a proof of sending the letters. If these records are available, then they should be put on this page for maintaining transparency. In case no such records are available with the Society, then the process followed itself is faulty and must be revisited.
ReplyDeleteThis was not an arbitrary decision as alleged by Mr Annonymous. The issue was included in the agenda items circulated to members prior to the Special General Body Meet (SGBM) on 30 Aug 2009. The Calling Notice for the SGBM were despatched to members under UPC and a record of the same is kept in the Society office. Since only three addresses are contained on a single page, the number of total pages of such record runs into over 30 pages and it is not possible to produce the same here. However, any member wishing to see the records, is welcome to contact the Secretary and his right to access the information will be respected at all costs.
ReplyDeleteIt is sad that the issue had to be debated in the SGBM inspite of there being a statutory provision on the subject. The members may note that even during the voting during the SGBM, a fraud was committed by owner of Flat No 27 who had already sold his flat on 28 Aug 2009 and had lost his right to vote. He not only concealed this fact from the Society but also participated in the SGBM as a full fledged member and cast his vote on the issue.
In my opinion, a member who has used the car parking space for some time has adequately been compensated for investing money in it. He enjoyed the facility when it was denied to his fellow members. If the investment was made only to reap a heavy profit at a later stage, it is against the very principle of cooperative living.
Ultimately, the issue is one of choice between individual greed and collective benefit.
Free and Frank opinion expressed by Col Jagdish Madan is respectable. We are happy to note that the letters were sent under UPC. We have no doubts on this as transparency is a moto of this MC.
ReplyDeleteInspite of all good intentions of the MC in taking this decision, one has to understand the basic premise that a member got a flat after paying a certain amount. He/ she makes use of the flat and still gets higher price according to market rates and Society/ DDA has no objections in this regard. Keeping this basic premise in mind, the members who are selling their flats and have covered parking space (obtained after payning an amount decided by the Society), should be compensated suitably while handing over the parking space to the Society. I hope one can understand this basic principle and avoid putting it under the individual greed.
I am surprised to see that since March 1, 2010, when the above comment was posted Hon. Col. Madan ji has not made it clear that the members who are asking for interest on the amount deposited for handing over the covered parking space is not an individual greed. If one agrees on the above justification. If one does not agree, then one must justify it. Therefore, we still say that the options given for voting were faulty and ecision should be revistied.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI think we are mixing two issues. One is sale of garage and another one is the allottment of a garage by the Society. Society took an x-amount for allotting the garage to a member in 1998. How can the Society thinks that same amount paid in 2010 will compensate the member? Some honourable member said that if the garage is used by the member, then it is considered as compensation and the decision of the Society to return only the original amount to the aloottee is justified according to that member. In that respect we respectfully wish to submit that a falt is also given at a cost at that time. It is used by the person concerned. Therefore, if a person gets benefit from his/her falt due to cost escalations. Then it is justified to give a nominal interest on the amount deposited for allotment of garage. Another solution to this isse can be: enhance the rates for allottment for garage (rates in 1998, 2002 and 2010 should not be same and this can easily be understood by a right thinking person). Enhanced amount may be fixed as some percentage increase each year. Take the enhanced rates from the new allottess and give that enhanced amount to the original allottee while he/she is returning the garage to the Society. I think nobody should have objection to this. If we think that 1998 and 2010 rates for allottment of garage should be same, then I would say that we are not thinking in right perspective and taking favour of those members who did not pay earlier for garages.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteThe fact still remains that the parking space is the property of the Society under Section 89 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 2007 read in conjucntion with Building Plans of DIN CGHS Ltd approved by the DDA. Sale / allotment of the car parking space to individual members by the Society was wrong, to begin with. The suggestion that profits from resale / reallotment to new members, at enhaced rates, be passed on to original allottees would tantamount to individual members enriching themselves from sale of common property of the Society. This would be a crime, to say the least. Those who feel strongly against the views expressed above can always approach the courts and clarify their minds.
I would request annonymous commenters to kindly give their names.
Regards.
Yes, there is no two opinions that it is the property of society and in none of the comments members have disagreed on this point. Disagreement is only on one point that in the beginning Society has taken some money to allott the parking space. Therefore, the issue is how to compensate a law abiding member. If we agree to respected Col. Madan ji that "Sale / allotment of the car parking space to individual members by the Society was wrong, to begin with." , then we are again making a mistake by allotting the same parking space to other members now by taking a certain amount. Therefore, we hope that one should understand it before saying that original allottment was wrong, we again reiterate that what we as the Society are doing now (allotting the parking by taking a certain amount)is repeating the same mistake again. Therefore, let us accept the things as they are and find out a solution to compensate the members who have paid 10 years back. Compensation may be very nominal and not at the market rate of interest. You may think of paying 4-6% interest on the amount deposited and it is justified.
ReplyDeleteWe shall come with our names once this point is understood and when we become clear what we are discussing. Let us think positively and not mix up the issues.
CAR PARKING IN DIN COOPERATIVE G/H SOCIETY LTD.
ReplyDeleteI think the open car parking near the boundary wall is the property of the Society and not the covered parking space which was allotted to the members like Flats on actual cost.In societies, the covered car parking is sold by member(owner) with the flat.As the present value of flat has gone up about eight times, similar is with the amount paid for the covered car parking. We may get Rupees Ten Lac more on selling Flat with car parking than without car parking.So at present the market rate of car parking space allotted to members for Rs one Lac is Rs Ten Lac.How it can become the property of the society after receiving the cost of allotted car parking space?
I totally disagree with the opinion of Col Jagdish Madan ( Retd. ) given for car parking as:
ReplyDelete"In my opinion, a member who has used the car parking space for some time has adequately been compensated for investing money in it. He enjoyed the facility when it was denied to his fellow members. If the investment was made only to reap a heavy profit at a later stage, it is against the very principle of cooperative living.
Ultimately, the issue is one of choice between individual greed and collective benefit. "
Flats are also used by members so are adequately
compensated for investing money for it as per him.Is there any member who would like to sell his flat at the cost price for which Lakhs of people will be interested ?