Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/6/2017

Pushpalatha - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.S. Moorthy & 4 ors - Opp.Party(s)

S. Mani

16 Dec 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                   ::     PRESIDENT

Tmt.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                            ::      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 06/2017

(Against the order in C.C. No.23/2014 dt.21.11.2016 on the file of the

D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (North))

 

DATED THE 16^th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

Tmt. Pushpalatha,

W/o. Mr. S. Kamadevan,

Flat No.203, Sruthi Block,

Chitra Avenue,

Choolaimedu High Road,

Chennai – 600 094.                                                            ..  Appellant / Complainant.

- Versus –

1. Thiru. M.S. Moorthy,

Flat No.602, Sruthi Block,

Chitra Avenue,

No.9, Choolaimedu High Road,

Chennai – 600 094.

 

2. Thiru. I. Rahamathullah,

Flat No.306, Manikandan Block,

Chitra Avenue,

No.9, Choolaimedu High Road,

Chennai – 600 094.

 

3. Thiru. J. Suresh Jagannathan,

Flat No.407, Vasu Block,

Chitra Avenue,

No.9, Choolaimedu High Road,

Chennai – 600 094.

 

4. Thiru. Y.R. Bhaskar,

Flat No.506, Sruthi Block,

Chitra Avenue,

No.9, Choolaimedu High Road,

Chennai – 600 094.

5. The Secretary,

Chitra Avenue Flat Owners’ Welfare Association,

Jayam Block Basement,

Chitra Avenue,

No.9, Choolaimedu High Road,

Chennai – 600 094.                                                     ..  Respondents/ Opposite parties.

 

(Now, there is no Secretary.  Hence, the notice

may be dispensed with for the 5^th Opposite party)

 

Counsel for Appellant / Complainant                  : M/s. S. Mani

Respondents 1 to 4 / Opposite parties 1 to 4     : Served called absent

5^th Opposite party                                               : Dispensed with

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing today, on 03.12.2021 and on hearing the arguments of Appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order in open court :-

ORDER

Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI:

            This appeal has been filed by the appellant / opposite party under section 15  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North).

 

1.         The factual background culminating  in to  appeal is as follows:-

The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Flat Owners’ Welfare Association in not rectifying the defect of free flow of water in the water pipeline and in not clearing the sewerage blockade in one bathroom of the complainant’s flat.  The complainant who was one of the resident of Chitra Avenue No.9 at Shruthi Block in Flat No.203 (2^nd Floor) alleges that as per bylaw 2 (a) of the Association, the main object of the Association is “to maintain the building and common amenities such as water supply, drainage, lighting security, cleanliness and light towards a comfortable living for the residents”.   The association collected maintenance at the rate of Rs.900/- per month.  The office bearers of the 1^st respondent was elected for a period of 1 year.  But at present, the present office bearers did not step down even after expiry of 1 year and no fresh elections were held.   A civil suit was also filed with regard to the same and the City Civil Court, Chennai after elaborate trial decreed the suit directing the Association to hold fresh elections.  Further from February 2013 enhanced maintenance  of Rs.1,400/- was demanded by the opposite parties which was refused  by the complainant for which, she was treated as a defaulter.   A final notice dt. 08.08.2013 was also issued with regard to the payment of maintenance and pursuant to the same the water connection was disconnected at about 11.00 A.M. on 14.08.2013.   Immediately, the complainant remitted the cash and got receipt indicating Rs.3,000/- towards arrears and Rs.600/- towards disconnection and reconnection charges on 14.08.2013.  But while effecting reconnection it was not properly done and there was a block for free water flow of water in one bathroom.  The complainant states that it was the high handed act on the part of the respondents in arresting the water flow.  Thus the complaint was filed to direct the respondent to rectify the flow of water in the water pipeline and to clear the sewerage blockade in one bathroom immediately at the complainant’s flat and also to direct the respondents to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and undue hardship to the complainant’s family and to pay Rs.100/- per day from the date of complaint till the date of rectification of the alleged deficiency. 

2.         The opposite parties filed written version stating that the said Association was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies’ Act in the year 1975 bearing Regn. No.217/2003.    As per the original bylaw the term of office bearers was 3 years and in 2009 the complainant who was one of the flat owner had filed a civil suit seeking to remove the office bearers and for holding fresh elections.  The Court finally came to a conclusion that the period of 3 years was over by then and ordered for fresh elections.  The complainant was residing in the 2^nd floor of Shruthi Block and except the complainant no other flat owners (i.e.) 41 owners/ tenants of the said block as well from the other 9 Blocks had any similar complaint.  The opposite party further submitted that there was only a single pipeline from terrace to drainage and they were joined to the respective bathrooms, toilet of all the flat owners.  Hence, if there is really any blockade it would have given raise to complaints to all the flat owners.   Further, an Engineer was also appointed to inspect the same and to file report, who had filed a report stating that the flow of water from top to 2^nd floor would be in heavy force due to gravity and there was no scope for sewerage blockade.   Thus, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.    The complainant filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A14.  The opposite parties filed  proof affidavit and marked documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B12.  The District Forum after perusing the pleadings and documents, dismissed the complaint holding that the opposite parties had not committed any deficiency in service.    Aggrieved by the same the complainant had preferred the present appeal. 

3.         Point for consideration:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

4.         Point:-

The Counsel for the appellant filed written arguments and also adduced oral argument.  However on the side of opposite parties inspite of sufficient notice and time no representation was made either in person or through Counsel.

5.         It was argued by the Counsel for the complainant/ appellant that the maintenance amount of Rs.1,400/- was enhanced without any prior intimation and at present the maintenance was charged at Rs.2,500/- from October 2014 and the complainant was paying the same without any default.  However, the respondents had disconnected the water supply to two bathrooms of the complainant without any prior intimation and when enquired it was stated that the action was taken by the Water Management Committee of the Association as per the directions of the 1^st respondent who was the President of the Association.  However, the disconnection was made only to take vengeance as the complainant had initiated legal action against the President and Members of the Association by way of filing Civil Suit in City Civil Court in O.S. No.4645/2009 and had got a decree for permanent injunction.  When the appellant remitted the cash of Rs.3,600/- immediately on 14.08.2013 still the water supply was restored only on the next day and while effecting reconnection the employees of the 5^th respondent fixed PVC pipes instead of GI Steel pipes and thus blocked the free flow of water in one bathroom.  The complainant thus alleged that while effecting the reconnection of water supply respondents had wantonly blocked the water supply through the employees of the Association.  It was further argued that even as per the report submitted by the Engineer in para 18 (b), “the complainant’s flat is situated in the 2^nd floor and therefore the flow of water from the top to second floor will be heavy force due to gravity.   Similarly there is no scope for the sewerage blockade as reasons of all the toilet waste and other particles have been coming down from 6^th floor to the ground floor and passed to the connected drainage systems”.  Thus it was contented that there is no scope for any blockade in the complainant’s flat automatically and it was only due to the highhanded act of the respondents. 

5.         Heard the Counsel for the appellant and perused the pleadings and documents available on record.  It is seen that the opposite parties even in their written version had not denied that one of the bathroom in the complainant’s flat the water supply was blocked.  They themselves had admitted that the water supply was restored and free flow of water was made available.  It is seen that the water supply was restored only after the orders passed by the High Court in Contempt Application No.3040/2014 in which, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed who submitted report as follows:

“I submit that after the above verification, I came to the conclusion

1. That the water was not frequently flowing in the Petitioner’s flat
2. That the blockade was in the metal pipe which connects the PVC pipes.  The blockade was not a natural blockade; it was wantonly blocked using plastic covers.
3. Water was flowing with full pressure in other flats situated in the same building”.

It is also seen that that the water blockade was removed and supply was restored on 16.11.2014 when the sewerage block was also cleared.  Thus, we could see that when there is no specific denial on the allegations about the artificial blockade made by the complainant by the opposite parties and the fact that the water supply was restored and sewerage was cleared only after the orders by the High Court, we are of the view that the opposite parties had wantonly cut the water supply to the complainant and resultantly caused mental agony and undue hardship to him.  This act of opposite parties clearly amounted to deficiency in service. 

6.         With regard to the relief claimed by the complainant the 1^st prayer of the complainant to restore the water supply was already fulfilled.  With regard to the prayer for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the damages caused by the opposite parties, we are of the view that a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000/- would be appropriate compensation  in the facts and circumstances of the case as the opposite parties are not individuals but represent the Association in which the complainant is also one of the member.  Thus, the point was answered in favour of the appellant holding that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and the complainant / appellant is entitled for compensation. 

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.  No order as to costs.

 

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                                                                         R. SUBBIAH             

            MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT