This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 05-06-12               in the presence of Sri T. Devadas, advocate for complainant and of                           Sri Ch. Nageswara Rao, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant association filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking recovery of Rs.96,000/- paid to the opposite party towards repairs, Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation and Rs.8,000/- towards mental agony.

2.  In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The flat owners of Rohini Arcade Apartment (ten in number) formed into complainant association.  On 10-02-10 the opposite party undertook to repair leakages in bath rooms and wash areas of flats 2, 6, 7 and 8 by injecting grouting with 40 PSI methods.   The opposite party gave an undertaking to that effect on 10-02-10 on letter head.   There were 10 number of items for repair works.   The opposite party undertook to repair each item @Rs.4,000/-.  The flat owners of 1 to 4 and 10 came forward to get their bath rooms and wash areas repaired for leakages.   The opposite party agreed to execute the repairing work for leakages.   The opposite party agreed to execute the repairing work @Rs.12,000/- per each flat irrespective of number of items to be repaired.   When the opposite party started executing the repair work on 06-04-10 in respect of the above flats, the flat owners of 5 and 7 did not want their flats to be repaired.   The opposite party therefore started executing the repair work on 06-04-10 in respect of the above flats 1 to 4, 6, 8 to 10.   Owners of the above flats furnished necessary materials like cement, Birla White and buckets.   The opposite party completed the work by the end of April, 2010.  When the rain started coming almost all the places where the opposite party executed the repair works started leakage i.e.,

1. Two bed rooms and one hall of flat No.1
2. One bed room, hall and dining hall of flat No.2
3. Two bed rooms and hall of flat No.3
4. One bed room, dining hall and main hall of flat No.4         
5. One bed room of flat No.6
6. Three bath rooms, two bed rooms and hall of flat No.8
7. Hall of flat No.9

Inspite of several phone calls the opposite party did not care to visit the premises to rectify the damage caused to them.   The opposite party did not chose to give any reply to the notice dated           30-07-11 of the complainant.   The complaint therefore be allowed. 

3.  The contention of the opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

        Owner of the flat No.6 on 30-03-10 required the opposite party to do leakage work and accordingly both of them entered into agreement.   The said agreement has nothing to do with other flat owners.   Subsequently, other flat owners required to do leakage work to their flats.  As per terms of the agreement the opposite party never agreed to guarantee for the leakage.   The flat owners subjected the opposite party to harassment, mental agony and monitory loss for want of co-operation and due to that the opposite party was unable to complete the work in time and has to incur extra expenses for workers during prolonged period.   The opposite party did the work with utmost care and caution properly.   The complainant and other flat owners put the bath rooms for use immediately without waiting for the next day.  At the time of execution of repairing work the opposite party informed flat owners about leaks in the taps and required them to rectify it as otherwise will cause damage to the work done by him.   But the flat owners did not care for the same.   As the leakage in flat No.5 was not done it was not possible to rectify the problem in flat No.3.   After completion of the work the opposite party visited those flats and informed that he could not give any guarantee for the work done by him due to non co-operation of flat owners and failed to take precautions.  There was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant filed this complaint to harass the opposite party and extract money from him besides damaging reputation.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.     Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of complainant.  No documents were marked on behalf of opposite party.

5.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief?

6.   Admitted facts in this complaint are:       

1. The opposite party on 26-03-10 entered into agreement with             P.V. Narayana Rao to arrest the leakage of bath room from flat No.7 to flat No.9 (Ex.A-2).
2. The opposite party executed a letter in favour of complainant association for arresting the leakage of flats 1 to 10 @Rs.12,0000/- per each (Ex.A-1).
3. The opposite party received Rs.98,000/- from the complainant (Ex.A-1).
4. Flat owners of 5 and 7 did not get their flats repaired.
5. The opposite party on 10-02-10 undertook to repair the work in flat No.2, 6 to 8 (Ex.A-3).
6. The complainant got issued notice to opposite parties    (Exs.A-4 and A-5).

7.  POINT No.1:- 

        In view of Ex.A-1 dated 02-04-10 Ex.A-2 and A-3 got superseded in our opinion and they no way help the complainant.

8.     The deficiency of service said to have been committed by the opposite party was mentioned in para No.10 and it reads as follows:

                “When the rain started coming almost all the places where the opposite party executed the repair works started leakages.   The two bed rooms and one hall of flat No.1; one bed room, hall and dining hall of flat No.2; two bed rooms, hall of flat No.3, one bed room, dining hall and main hall of flat No.4, one bed room of flat No.6; three bath rooms, two bed rooms and hall of flat No.8 and hall of flat No.9 started leakage due to rains.   The above said bed rooms, dining halls, drawing rooms and bath rooms are pealed of paint on the walls and giving ugly look”.

9.     It appears to us that rain water leaked into bed rooms, dining halls, drawing rooms and bath rooms of respective flats and paint on those walls peeled off and gave ugly look.

10.   The opposite party in its version mentioned that he informed the flat owners about leakage in the taps and sought rectification as otherwise it will cause damage to the work done by him, after completion of the work the opposite party visited the same and informed that due to non co-operation of flat owners and failed to take precautions mentioned by him, no guarantee could be given for the work done by him.

11.   The complaint was silent where the opposite party did repair work inside the flats or to the outer walls of the apartments.  The leakage of rain water can be:

1. From terrace,
2. Through windows of respective flats and,
3. Through cracks of outer walls. 

The complaint as well as affidavit was also silent whether leakage of rain water was from one flat to another or from bath rooms of respective flats to the inner walls of their flats or otherwise.

12.  The leakage of rain water from terrace of one flat to another flat in normal course is not possible except the flats beneath the terrace.   The leakage of rain water through windows of respective flats, if any, is by way of showers or from base of the windows.  Such leakage can be arrested by flat owners by closing windows or clearing water stagnation properly.   The leakage of rain water, if any, from one flat to another flat can be due to stagnation of water in bath rooms or dining halls or other rooms, on account of uneven flooring.

13.  The leakage of rain water into respective flats can be through cracks of outer walls.   As already observed the complaint was silent whether the opposite party had done repair work inside the flats or to the outer walls of the apartment.  We therefore opine that the complaint is lacking in material particulars and is ambiguous.  Under those circumstances, we opine that the complainant failed to discharge his burden in establishing the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and answer this point against the complainant. 

14.   POINT No.2:-   In view of above findings, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation and we therefore answer this point against the complainant.

15.   POINT NO.3:-  In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 12^th  day of June, 2012.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party :   NIL

                                                                                                                       PRESIDENT