PER PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the order dated 04.02.2008 of the State Commission passed in Misc. Appln. No. 1106/2007 in CC/35/2004, decided on 18.05.2007. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant herein filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission that the construction work was to be completed by the respondent No.2/OP2, whereas, the work of water proofing in all the houses of the project was carried out by respondent No.1/OP1. Even after the water proofing, roofs of some of the houses were leaking and that is why a complaint was filed before the State Commission against the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for repairing the leakage portions. The water proofing had a guarantee period of 10 years and the leakage of water was seen in many flats during the warranty period. The State Commission vide its order dated 18.05.2007, in CC No.35/2004, partly allowed the complaint, as under :- “i) Complaint is partly allowed only against OP No.1 and dismissed against OP No.2; ii)OP No.1 – M/s. Jupiter Water Proofing is directed to take emergent necessary steps to plug effectively the leakages / seepages of 30 flats of the buildings at Section 4, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order; and iii) The OP No.1 shall pay amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of this Complaint and both the OPs shall bear their own cost”. 3. The present Appeal has been filed against the above order of the State Commission by the complainant. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant/complainant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Respondent No.1/OP1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.04.2016 of this Commission. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant stated that the State Commission has ordered OP1 to repair only 30 flats, whereas, the complaint was filed for 90 flats and the same number was also mentioned in the rejoinder filed by the complainant. Learned counsel requested that the order of the State Commission be extended to 90 flats. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that no list of 90 flats was supplied, however, the complainant had filed a communication wherein a specific list of 30 flats was provided and that is why, the State Commission has restricted its order to 30 flats only. Learned counsel further submitted that the warranty period for water proofing was still continuing when the order of the State Commission was passed, however, when the OP1 contacted the Appellant for undertaking the repair works of 30 flats, he was not allowed to work and it was stated by the Appellant/complainant that the appeal has been filed against the order of the State Commission. OP1 has also paid Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque to the Appellant which has been accepted by the Appellant and encashed. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant and Respondent No.2 and have examined the material on record. From the record, it is clear that the list of only 30 houses was available before the State Commission and no list of 90 flats was filed either with the complaint or with the rejoinder filed by the complainant. Without any specific list, it was not possible for the State Commission to order for 90 flats whose details were not known. Moreover, when the OP1 wanted to repair the 30 flats as ordered by the State Commission, he was not allowed by the Appellant on the ground that the Appeal was pending and thus the Appellant/ Complainant has let the warranty period expire. As no evidence has been adduced for the leakage of 90 flats, repairs of the same cannot be ordered now, as the warranty period has already expired. 8. Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the Appeal and, accordingly, FA No.192/2015 stands dismissed. | 
