THE ADDITIONAL THANE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOKAN-BHAVAN.
Complaint No. :- 203/2010
Date of filing :- 21-10-2010
Order Date :- 04/12/2013..
Ms. Lakshmi Venkatachalam,
R/at :- D-312, LOK TERRACE,
PLOT NO. 16, SECTOR – 17,
VASHI, Navi Mumbai – 400703. ….. Complainant
V/s.
1. Chairman –
Mr. Prafulla Ranjan,
A- 503, Aranja Tower C.H.S.,
PLOT
2. Secretary,
Mr. M.S. Kataria,
Shop no. 14-17, Arenja Towers C.H.S.
3. Committee Members of Arenja Towers. C.H.S.
Sector 11, C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai. ….. Oppo.Party No.
1 & 2
Before:- Hon. Mrs. S.S. Mhatre, President
Hon. Mr. S.S. Patil, Member
Present :- For Complainant Adv. Krushna Thakkar,
For Oppo. Party No W.S. order
Order
(Date :- 04/12/2013)
Per Hon. Member Shri. S.S. Patil
1. This is the complaint regarding the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as they have caused damage to the shops of the complainant as alleged by the complainant.
2. The facts of the complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is the member of the Arenja Towers co.op.Hsg. Society ltd., in respect of shop no. 5 & 6 situated in the premises of the said society. She gives these shops on rental basis and earning some income (Rs. 42,000/- per month) from the said shops. This income is the only source of her income.
3. In the month of May 2010 she renovated these shops by expending a sum of Rs. 4 lacs. She wanted to give these shops on rent from June – July 2010. On 14-6-10 when she visited the shops, she found that the ceiling plaster of the shops had fallen and some portion of ceiling was damp. The electric appliances (Tube lights, fan etc.) were found lying on the ground. When she went to the terrace of the said shops, she found that the above damage was caused due to the repairing work being carried out by the opposite parties. The floor of the terrace of the shops was badly scrapped which had caused the above said damage. Therefore, she sent a (letter dtd. 18-6-10) but there was no response from the opposite parties.
4. The complainant has further stated that there was a heavy damage to these shops due to heavy water leakage from the terrace and this was caused because the terrace repair work which was not done with proper care.
5. The complainant has further stated that, due to the above said damage, the shops could not be given on rents and they are vacant. Therefore, the complainant is sustaining loss of Rs. 42,000/- p.m. since June 2010. The complainant has attached some photographs of the inside portion of the shops and the report of the Architect Shri. P.S.Nadkarni dtd. 23-6-10 showing the damages to the shops.
6. The complainant has further produced, Bye-law 160. According to which the society is liable to –
a) Repairs and maintain terrace
b) Structural repair of roofs of all flats / shops.
c) All leakage of water including leakage due to rainwater.
d) The damaged ceiling and the plaster thereon in the top floor flats or
flats / shops under a terrace.
7. In view of the above provisions the complainant issued notice to the opposite parties but in vain. Lastly the complainant has approached this Forum and prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the loss of rent of shops Rs. 3,50,000/- towards the damage caused to the shops, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, Rs. 25,000/- towards the cost of filing this complaint.
8. The complainant has attached the copies of the following documents in support of her complaint –
a) Receipt of maintainance
b) Letter to the opposite parties dtd. 18-6-10.
c) Photographs of the damaged portion of the shops.
d) Report dtd. 23-6-10 from architect.
e) Notice dtd. 5-7-10.
f) Notice for Annual General Meeting of the society.
9. The complaint was admitted and notices were duly served on the opposite parties. One Ld. Adv. Mr. Mangesh Chavan appeared before this Forum on 07-02-11. However, no written statement was filed by the opposite parties. Hence, No W.S. order was passed by this Forum vide Roznama dt. 02-04-11. Thereafter, nobody from opposite parties appeared before this Forum. The Complainant filed her affidavit of evidence and written argument. Wherein the complainant has reiterated the facts mentioned in her complaint.
10. We heard the Ld. Adv. for the complainant & perused the documents filed by the her & our findings are as follows :-
Findings :-
11. The complainant is the member of Arenja Towers co.op.housing society ltd., in respect of shop no. 5 & 6. She is paying the regular maintenance charges to the said society. Opposite parties are the office bearers of the said society. Opposite parties have undertaken the terrace repair work on the above shop no. 5 & 6. It was their liability to protect the interest of members and safeguard their property. During the course of repair of the terrace the above shop no. 5 & 6, some portion of the ceiling of the shop no. 5 & 6 came down & electric fans & tubes also came down and there is leakage in the shops through holes in the terrace. Therefore, apparently the damage to the ceiling of shop no. 5 & 6 was caused due to the negligence on the part of opposite parties. As per the bye-law 160 it is their liability to maintain the terrace and structure of the building. Inspite of letter of the complainant dtd. 18-6-10 and a legal notice to the opposite parties, they did not give any heed to the complainant’s letter and the notice.
12. The complainant has produced a report of an architect assessing the damage, the complainant has not filed any affidavit of this architect. She has also failed to file the affidavit of a person who has obtained the photographs. There are major discrepancies in the damaged items mentioned in the original complaint which is drafted on 22-10-10 and the assessment report dtd. 23-6-10. The architect has not given the itemwise cost of the articles damaged. For e.g. it is not mentioned, as to how much would be the cost of P.O.P.. It is not mentioned whether the actual electric tube lights, fans were damaged or they are intact but the wires are damaged. The original complaint mentions about fan and tube lights, electrical appliances, but this report does not mention about fans. The complainant does not mention about the A.C. ventilators and damage to shutters, though the report of the architect is prior to the drafting of the original complaint. Therefore, taking into consideration the above discrepancies, it appears that the report of the architect is exaggerated and is not acceptable in absence of the affidavit of the architect. The complaint mentions only damage to the ceiling P.O.P. and electrical appliances in the shops. Even it does not mention the list of the electrical appliances. Under these circumstances it would not be proper and just to rely on the bare report of the architect which ambiguously states the loss to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/-. Taking into consideration the contents about the damage mentioned in the complaint, and above observation, in our candid view an amount of loss of Rs. 1,00,000/- only can be attributed to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and damage caused due to that deficiency.
13. The other important relief saught by the complainant is to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the loss of rent fetched by the two shops. In this respect, the complainant has stated that, she was earning a rent of Rs. 42,000/- p.m. from these shops. However, she has also not mentioned about the area of these shops and any other cogent evidence to show the monthly earnings from such shops prevailing in the said locality where these shops are situated. Even she has not given any cogent proof to show that the shops remained vacant. Therefore, it would not be proper and just to grant this relief in absence of authentic evidence.
14. As discussed earlier, the opposite parties are deficient in their service by negligent repair work of their terrace. This must have caused mental agony, and inconvenience to the complainant. Hence, the opposite parties liable to compensate a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the mental agony caused to the complainant.
15. The complainant is also entitled for the cost of Rs. 10,000/- towards the legal expenses.
16. In view of the above observations we pass the order as follows
ORDER
1. Complaint bearing no. CC/203/2010 is partly allowed.
a) Opposite parties are directed to repair the terrace above shop no. 5 & 6 in order to stop the lickage into the above said shops of the complainant.
b) Opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (in words Rs. One Lac only) towards the cost of damage to the ceiling and electrical appliances caused due to the leakage from the terrace of shop no. 5 & 6
c) Opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (in words Rs. Ten thousand only) to the complainant for mental agony caused due to deficiency in service rendered by them in repairing the terrace above shop no. 5 & 6.
d) Opposite parties are directed to pay the cost of Rs. 10,000/- (in words Rs. Ten thousand only) towards legal expenses incurred by the complainant in this complaint.
e) Opposite parties are directed to comply with the above order within 30 days of the receipt of this order.
f) Certified copies of this order be sent to both the parties by R.P.A.D.
free of cost.
Date :- 04/12/2013
Place :- Kokan – Bhavan, Navi Mumbai.
(Sudhakar S. Patil) (Sneha S. Mhatre)
Member President
THE ADDITIONAL THANE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOKAN-BHAVAN, NAVI MUMBAI.
