Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

23/2014

Tmt.Pushpalatha,W/o.Kannan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tr.M.S.Moorthy, - Opp.Party(s)

P.Murugan

21 Nov 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  12.02.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  21.11.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

MONDAY THE 21^st    DAY OF NOVEMBER  2016

 

C.C.NO.23/2014

 

 

Tmt.Pushpalatha

W/o S.Kamadevan,

Flat No.203, Sruthi Block,

Chitra Avenue,

Choolaimedu High Road,

Chennai – 94.

                                                                                   ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1.Thiru.M.S.Moorthy,

 

2.Thiru.I.Rahamathullah,

 

3.Thiru.J.Suresh Jagannathan,

 

4.Thiru.Y.R.Bhaskar,

 

5. The Secretary,

Chitra Avenue Flat Owners Welfare Association,

Jayam Block Basement,

Chitra Avenue,

No.9, Choolaimedu High Road,

Chennai – 94.

	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  : 13.02.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Mr. P.Murugian

Counsel for  Opposite parties                   :M/s.V.N.Prasad, M.Krishnamurthy,

                                                               D.Gopinathan,R.Jayanthi, B.Gandhi   

 

 

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is the owner of the flat No.203 (II floor) at Sruthi Block, Chitra Avenue, No.9 Choolaimedu High Road, Chennai 94. An association was formed in the name of Chitra Avenue flat owner’s welfare association in 2003 and the Complainant is the permanent member in the said association. The 1^st Opposite Party is the President of the association and the other Opposite Parties are the office bearers of the said association.  The Complainant was initially paying Rs.500/- per month towards water charges and subsequently it was fixed at Rs.900/- per month. Even after expiry of tenure the association office bearers continued in the said post and hence the Complainant filed OS.No.4645/2009 before the City Civil Court, Chennai. The said suit was decreed in favour of the Complainant after contest.  However, the 1^st Opposite Party and others again continued their post. The Opposite Parties fixed at the rate of Rs.1,400/- per month from February 2013 onwards towards water charges. Without convening general body meeting, enhanced water charges is not justifiable. A notice was sent to the Complainant dated 11.08.2013 failing to pay water connection charges, the connection will be disconnected. Accordingly this water connection was disconnected on 14.08.2013. Then the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards arrears of water charges and Rs.600/- for reconnection charges and thereafter the water connection was restored. The payment was made by the Complainant without prejudice to his right. There is a sewerage blockade in her bathroom and the Opposite Parties are bound to depute concerned person to clear the blockade. Having failed to clear the Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service. Hence this Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Parties to rectify the flow of water in the water pipe line and clear the sewerage blockade in one bathroom in her flat and also to order compensation for her hardship and her family members with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Parties admits that the Complainant is the owner of the flat No.203 at Surthi block and she had also filed a suit before the City Civil Court, Chennai. The Opposite Parties were elected unanimously in the year 2012 by all the flat owners.  The Complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of monthly maintenance for the period of years and inspite of that this Opposite Parties supplied water to his flat. The Complainant’s block consists of 42 flats and six floors. In respect of water connection there are four pipe lines are laid from the terrace to the six floors one for metro water and another for bore well and other two pipe line for two toilets respectively in each flat. The Complainant has filed this Complaint only with enmity and the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

         

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4.POINT : 1

           It is an admitted fact that the Complainant is the owner of flat No.203 (II floor) at Sruthi Block, Chitra Avenue , No.9 Choolaimedu High Road, Chennai 94 and  an association  was formed in the name of Chitra Avenue flat owners welfare association in  the  year 2003 and the Complainant is the permanent member  in the said association and  the 1^st Opposite Party is the President of the association and the other Opposite Parties  are the office bearers of the said association and  the  water charges fixed  at Rs.500/- initially and subsequently raised at Rs.900/- per month and again it was raised at Rs.1,400/- from February 2013 and the Complainant filed OS.No.4645/2009 against the Opposite Parties  in the City Civil Court, Chennai and the said suit was partly decreed on 30.07.2010.

          5. The Complainant alleged deficiency against the Opposite Parties is that there is a sewerage blockade in one of his bathroom of her flat and to clear the sewerage blockade for free flow of water the water pipe line, the Opposite Parties may be directed to do the same. The Complainant counsel himself filed a memo with an order of the Hon’ble High Court in contempt petition No.3040/2014 dated 14.11.2014. The Petitioner himself stated in the memo that the water block was removed and water supply was restored on 16.11.2014 and therefore the first relief sought by her in the Complaint no longer exists is accepted.

6. However, the Complainant insists to order damages for causing mental agony to her and her family members due to sewerage blockade in the bathroom. The Complainant relies on the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the report of the Advocate Commissioner extracted in the memo as follows:

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 blocked using plastic covers.
3. Water was flowing with full pressure in other flats situated in the same building”.

The Advocate Commissioner stated in his report that the blockade was not a natural and it was blocked using plastic covers. Therefore some persons must have blocked using plastic covers and made blockade. Absolutely there is no evidence on behalf of the Complainant to establish that the Opposite Parties have blocked using plastic covers.  If the Opposite Parties should have done such act then they are liable to pay compensation. Since there is no evidence that the Opposite Parties blocked by using plastic papers and there is no evidence that who have done the blockade, merely because the Opposite Parties are happened to be the office bearers of the association they are not liable to pay compensation. Further the blockade has been already removed.  Considering the facts in circumstances of the case, we hold that the Complainant has not proved that the Opposite Parties made the block and therefore, it is held that the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service. 

 7.POINT :2        

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 21^st   day of November  2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 16.07.2003                   Bye-laws of the Association

Ex.A2 dated 30.07.2010                   Copy of Decree in OSNO.4645/2009

Ex.A3 dated 19.02.2013                   Intimation issued by the fifth Respondent

Ex.A4 dated 28.02.2013                   Letter sent by the Complainant along with cheque

Ex.A5 dated 06.03.2013                   Receipt issued by the fifth Respondent

Ex.A6 dated 13.05.2013                   Letter sent by the Complainant along with cheque

Ex.A7 dated 31.05.2013                   Receipt issued by the fifth Respondent

Ex.A8 dated 08.08.2013                   Receipt issued by the fifth Respondent

Ex.A9 dated 08.08.2013                   Intimation from the fifth Respondent

Ex.A10 dated 11.08.2013                 Objections made by the Complainant

Ex.A11 dated 14.08.2013                 Receipt issued by the fifth Respondent

Ex.A12 dated 25.11.2013                 Receipt issued by the fifth Respondent

Ex.A13 dated 26.11.2013                 Objections made by the Complainant with

                                                   Acknowledgements

 

Ex.A14 dated 21.12.2013                 Letter sent along with cheque

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Ex.B1 dated 19.06.2009                   Fair and Decreetal order made in IA No.8794 of

                                                      2009 in OS No. 4645 of 2009    

 

Ex.B2 dated 26.08.2009                   Order passed in CRP No.1909 of 2009

 

Ex.B3 dated 15.10.2009                   Common order passed in IA No.8790 of 2009 and

                                                    IA No.8791 of 2009 in OS No.4645 of 2009  

 

Ex.B4 dated NIL                     Statement of arrears of payment made by the

                                                    Complainant

 

Ex.B5 dated 07.01.2010                   Order passed in CRP (PD) Nos. 40’0 and 4011 of

                                                    2009

 

Ex.B6 dated 00.03.2010                   Proof affidavit filed by Mr.S.Meenakshisundram

                                                       in OS No.4645 of 2009   

 

Ex.B7 dated 05.12.2011                   Letter written by Mr.M.S.Moorthy to the Chair

                                                      person and others   

 

Ex.B8 dated 04.12.2012                   Police Complaint against Complainant given by

                                                      the association with CSR copy  

 

Ex.B9 dated 31.03.2014                   Miscellaneous petition filed in CRP (NPD)

                                                    No.3955 of 2010 filed by the Complainant

 

Ex.B10 dated NIL                             Complaint Register maintained by the association

 

Ex.B11 dated 16.06.2014                 Engineer’s report

 

Ex.B12 dated NIL                             Photo

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT