JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      The complainant purchased flat No.808-B in Panchsheel Welington  Project in Crossing Republik N H 24, Ghaziabad. A theft took place in the aforesaid flat of the complainant, when no one was present inside the flat. The case of the complainant is that they had put locks on both the gates at the main door of the flat. The lock put on the steel door was broken, whereas the wooden door was cut, for the purpose of trespassing in the flat. The thieves thereafter broke open the steel almirah kept inside the flat and removed jewellery as well as the cash which the complainant had kept in the lockers of the almirah.

2.      The case of the complainant is that under an agreement between the complainant and the petitioner, the security for the flat purchased by him was to be provided by the petitioner and maintenance and security charges were being paid to the petitioner on a regular basis. Since neither the thieves could be caught nor the stolen goods could be recovered, the complainant preferred a complaint against the petitioner before the concerned District Forum seeking compensation for his loss amounting to Rs.4,75,000/- which comprised Rs.4,00,000/- towards the cost of the jewellery and Rs.75,000/- towards cash which was stolen from the house. He also sought compensation amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- for the harassment which he had to undergo.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the respondent inter alia on the ground that the matter in question was not a consumer dispute but a criminal act which was under investigation by the police, since FIR had already been filed. On merits, it was alleged that the security agency was in place and no deduction from the bill of the security agency can be made on account of theft of the complainant, when the matter is under investigation by the police.

4.      The first question which comes up for consideration is as to whether the security of the flat which the complainant had purchased from the petitioner was to be maintained by the petitioner or not. Clause (C) of the allotment letter which contains the terms & conditions agreed between the parties, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under

          “11.   The maintenance, upkeep, repairs, security etc., of the building including the common lawns of the building/complex will be organized by the company or its nominee. The allottee agrees and consents to the said agreement. The allottee shall pay maintenance charges which shall be fixed by the company or its nominee from time to time depending upon the maintenance cost. The buyer has to sign a maintenance agreement with the company or its nominee at the time of possession of the unit. In addition to the maintenance charges, there will be contribution to the replacement fund etc. Any delay in payments will result the allottee/s liable to interest @18% p.a.. Non payment of any of the charges within the time specified will also disentitle the allottee/s to the enjoyment of common services including electricity, use of lifts, club, water, etc.. The allottee consents to this arrangement whether the building is transferred to the Association of the flat buyers or other body corporate and shall continue till such time as the builder terminates the arrangement.”

          It would, thus, be seen that the responsibility of maintaining the building as well as its security was an obligation of the petitioner, in terms of the above referred agreement.

5.      The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had agreed to provide security of the building, it had not undertaken to provide security of each and every flat in the building. We, however, cannot agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The building/complex consists of residential flats allotted to several flat buyers who were paying regular maintenance charges to the petitioner company. Clause 11 of the terms and conditions extracted hereinabove shows that it was mandatory on the complainant as well as the other buyers to sign a maintenance agreement with the petitioner-company or its nominee at the time of taking possession of the unit and in case of failure to pay the maintenance charges they could be disentitled from using and enjoying the common services including electricity, lift, water, etc.. Thus, it cannot be said that security of individual flat was not the responsibility of the petitioner-company. The flat buyers pay maintenance charges primarily for the security of their individual flat and not for the security of the entire complex as a whole. Had the petitioner told them that it would not take care of the security of the individual flats, they might not have agreed to Clause 11 extracted hereinabove or would have made alternative arrangements.  Therefore, we find no merit in the contention that the aforesaid agreement did not require the petitioner to provide security in respect of individual flats allotted in the above referred building complex.

6.      The next question which comes up for consideration is as to whether there was any deficiency in providing security related services or not. The case of the petitioner is that they had provided security guards at the main entrance of the building complex and the said guards use to maintain a register noting the names of the visitors to the complex. However, it is an admitted case that no cameras were installed outside the main entrance of the residential flats which the petitioner had sold to the complainant and other flat buyers. In our opinion, the minimum security expected from the petitioner was to install cameras linked to the CCTVs, which would cover the main entrance of each and every flat. The cameras should have provision for retaining recording at least for a few days so that in the event of a theft/burglary taking place, the person breaking into the flat can be identified using the CCTV footage and later caught by the police. Had the petitioner installed cameras, in the corridors where the main entrance of the flat abutted, or at any other place from where the main entrance would be within the reach of the camera, it would have been possible for the police to identify the thieves and later catch hold of them and recover the stolen property from them. In fact it is also quite possible that noticing the cameras, the burglars might have got discouraged in trying to break open the locks which the complaint had put on the main entrance of the flat.

7.      In our opinion, besides installing cameras in the manner stated hereinabove, the petitioner company ought to have installed CCTVs in a control room where someone would be deputed to view the recording by the cameras on a regular basis so that any attempt by a thief to break into a flat could be thwarted immediately by sending the security personnel to the flat where such an attempt was noticed.

8.      It is true that the agreement between the parties does not specify what precisely were the security measures which the petitioner was expected to take in respect of individual flats.  Considering that the petitioner while executing the agreement that the flat buyers did not specify as to what extent and in what manner it would provide security of the building including individual flats, the security of a reasonable level ought to have been provided and that in our opinion would necessarily include installation of cameras with CCTVs, to be watched in a control room. As per the allotment letter it was obligatory for the flat buyer to enter into a maintenance agreement with the petitioner and pay the prescribed maintenance charges. Therefore, once the petitioner-company had taken  on itself to provide security of the building on payment of maintenance charges by the flat buyers, it was under a contractual obligation to provide security to the extent of a reasonable level as indicated herein before.

9.      Since admittedly, the petitioner-company had not installed any cameras, either outside the main entrance of the flat of the complainant or at any place from where the main entrance of the flat would be within the reach of the camera, it was clearly a case of deficiency in providing the security related services to the complainant.

9.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.