State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Malkiat Singh vs The Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, on 18 May, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1147 of 2008
Date of Institution : 07.10.2008
Date of decision : 18.05.2012
Malkiat Singh son of Karam Singh, aged 75 years, approximately, resident of Flat
No.521, 6th Floor, Shaheed Bhagat Singh House Fed Complex, Block E,
Ludhiana. Present Address:- Village Pharwali, PO Kalyan, Tehsil Malerkotla,
District Sangrur, Pin. 148020.
...Appellant
Versus
1. The Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Housefed Complex, Co-operative
House Building Society Ltd. Block E, Ludhiana through its President / Secretary /
Cashier.
2. The Managing Director, House-Fed Punjab, SCO 150-152, Sector 34-A,
Chandigarh.
3. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh.
...Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 12.8.2008 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Malkiat Singh in person.
For respondent No.1 : None.
For respondents No.2&3 : Sh.Harsh Manocha, Advocate for
Sh.Harsh Tandon, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
VERSION OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant had applied for flat in category I in House Fed, Super Delux Flat Scheme. After going through the brochure, the appellant came to know that House Fed was going to construct super deluxe flat with two categories and booking was opened on 11.6.1999 and the closing date was 12.7.1999. The appellant fulfilled all the requirements and had applied for category I flat. He was allotted flat No.521 situated on the 6th floor. Formal possession was delivered to the appellant on 30.4.2002 after receiving the entire amount of Rs.11.90 lacs First Appeal No.1147 of 2008 2 along with additional amount of Rs.97,000/- of which no details were given to the appellant.
2. It was further pleaded that as per terms of brochure every allottee / member was to fulfil all the conditions necessary for allotment of flats. The appellant was under the impression that the House Fed and Society Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Cooperative House Building Society shall provide all amenities as per terms of brochure. Respondents No.1 and 2 are bound by the recitals in the brochure besides receiving the price of the flat. Respondent No.1 also charged additional amount of Rs.1000/- for creation of common fund which was to be used for maintenance of common services / area. It was also mentioned in the brochure that subsequently monthly instalment as decided by the society shall be payable by the members of the society for maintaining, regulating, using, preventing misuse of common public space and services like, lifts, generators, fire fighting, water supply, paths, lawns, electricity, drainage, storm water disposal and garbage disposal and for preventing encroachment on public path, pre-empting disputes between neighbours arising out of water leakage, chocked drains, damage to common walls and noise disturbance or any other such act which caused nuisance to members of the society.
3. The other facilities which were assured in the brochure was the settlement amicably the dispute between the neighbours, to organise skeleton maintenance like those of plumber, electrician and repair and a roster of identified skilled persons and the rates negotiated with them was to be maintained by the residents of the society. It was also provided that out of maintenance fund for stoppage of growth of health hazards like cesspools, stagnant water, accumulated garbage and harmful bacteria and other micro organisms, to ensure timely recovery of the Housefed loan from the loanee members and to maintain liaison with Housefed Punjab or any other state agency for the betterment and upkeep of housing colony.
4. It was further pleaded that the appellant was entitled to avail all the services from respondents No.1 & 2. However, the respondents had failed to take suitable steps to provide all these mandatory and necessary amenities. First Appeal No.1147 of 2008 3
5. It was further pleaded that the appellant was a retired block development and panchayat officer, who had invested his huge amount in the purchase of this flat. The appellant and his wife are in old age and want to live peacefully but the appellant was suffering heavily on account of illegal attitude of respondents No.1 and 2.
6. It was further pleaded that the appellant had requested the respondents to remove the constructional defect in his allotted flat. The seepage of water in the lintel roof was also brought to their notice. The over flowing water in the water tanks kept on the roof of the flat was also brought to the notice of respondents No.1 & 2. There was no provision for outlet of overflowing water or rainy water, which usually collected over the roof of the flat of the appellant and this water absorbs in the roof which affected the walls of the flats of the appellant. For this reason, many cracks developed in the walls and lintel roof of the flat also sagged down due to seepage of water. The apprehension was that roof would fall at any time and walls can collapse at any movement. The walls have also bulged out of continuous seepage of water. The flat had become dilapidated and unfit for living. There was moisture over all in the interior side of the flat which has caused great loss of paint and valuable articles / domestic goods and furniture. It was brought to the notice of respondents No.1 & 2 for a number of times, but no attention was paid to it. Nor constructional defects were removed.
7. It was further pleaded that respondents were to provide two lifts and generator set for the use of allottee members. Without help of lift, it was very difficult for the appellant and his wife to reach 6th floor by stair case. The appellant is already retired and is of old age. The respondent was also legally bound to provide regular 24 hours supply of service like lift and other amenities. Respondents No.1 & 2 used to give false assertions to the appellant.
8. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1 had written number of letters to the appellant alleging that resolution was passed in the general house meeting that in case flat owner failed to pay monthly water supply charges, his connection would be disconnected. Such like resolution was illegal and against law and facts. The appellant has never withheld monthly payment of maintenance. But First Appeal No.1147 of 2008 4 when the appellant was not heard. He had no alternative but to write to respondents to redress his grievance and to remove the structural defects and to provide outlet for over flowing / rainy water on the roof, but the problems of the appellant were never attended. On the other hand, respondent No.1 tried to disconnect the supply of water to the flat of the appellant to pressurise the appellant to withdraw the complaint. Even the officials of respondent No.1 committed theft of water meter from the flat of the appellant in his absence for which a separate criminal complaint was pending in the police station Model Town, Ludhiana.
9. It was further pleaded that the appellant was being harassed by the officials of respondents No.1 & 2 without any reason. They were not meeting out the demands of the appellant. The respondents started getting Rs.500/- per month for providing the services of all amenities. The water was necessity of life and the water connection to the flat of the appellant was disconnected by the officials of respondent No.1. The appellant has suffered mentally, physically and also from the mental shock and cruelty and he was entitled to compensation amount of Rs.12.50 lacs. Hence the complaint.
VERSION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1
10. Respondent No.1 filed written reply. It was pleaded that the appellant was in arrear of maintenance of flat No.521, 6th floor and he was creating problems to other residents of society as well as to the society. Respondent No.1 passed resolution dated 10.6.2009 in the presence of President as well as Vice President and Members of society to recover the amount from the appellant. The society had written numerous letters to the appellant for making payment of maintenance charges, but inspite of repeated notices, the appellant failed to do so. The society has also filed the complaint against the appellant to the SHO, Police Station SBSN, Ludhiana for taking action against the appellant and DDR No.14 dated 13.9.2006 for offences under Section 107/150 of Cr.P.C. was registered in P.P. SBSN against the appellant on the grounds that the appellant was creating obstruction in funding of the society and creating breach of peace and insulting, annoying and abusing the society members. He was even facing the trial before First Appeal No.1147 of 2008 5 the ADC, Ludhiana. The appellant is also in arrears of maintenance of Rs.26,650/- till 31.3.2006.
11. It was denied if any cause of action had arisen to the appellant against respondent No.1. The entire payment for the purchase of flat was made to respondent No.2 and it was the duty of respondent No.2 to provide amenities to the appellant. The society has got no concern with it. The appellant was not consumer qua respondent No.1. Moreover, the appellant has signed the slip having taken delivery of flat and it is specifically mentioned that the flat was in a very well condition. The present complaint was barred as possession of flat in dispute was given to the appellant in year 2002. It was denied if there was any constructional default in the flat and if it was so, the present complaint has been filed in the year 2007 i.e. 5 years after the possession of the flat taken by him. The jurisdiction of District Forum was also denied.
12. On merits, it was denied if, as per terms of brochure, every member / allottee was to fulfil all the conditions necessary for allotment of flat or if necessary amenities were to be provided by the society. It was also denied if additional amount of Rs.1000/- was used for creation of common fund or for the maintenance of common services / arrears. Respondent No.1 has not received any payment for allotment of flat from the appellant. The entire payment of the flat was received by respondent No.2 and the allegations made by the appellant were misleading. It was denied if the appellant was retired Block Development and Panchyat Officer or he has invested huge amount in purchase of this flat. It was also denied if there was any constructional defect in the flat of the appellant or if there was seepage of water in lintel roof. It was pleaded that the allegations made by the appellant were totally false. It was not the duty of respondent No.1 to provide the facility of lift or generator or if he was to provide 24 hours service of lift or other amenities. It was repeatedly pleaded that appellant had to pay monthly maintenance charges. It was also denied that water connection was disconnected from the flat of the appellant. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
13. The complaint was not admitted qua respondents No.2 & 3. First Appeal No.1147 of 2008 6 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:
14. The appellant and respondents produced the affidavit / documents in support of their respective versions.
15. The learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "District Forum") dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 12.8.2008.
16. Hence the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
17. The appellant filed written arguments. It was pleaded that the respondents were bound to remove structural defect in the flat and they were bound to provide basic amenities like running lift. The respondents were also liable to remove cracks in the walls of the flat which had caused mental tension, physical harassment to the appellant. Lastly it was mentioned in the written arguments that he has no objection to pay the dues but first of all the basic amenities has to be provided as per allotment of flat / agreement. Hence it was prayed that the appeal be accepted, impugned order dated 12.8.2008 be set aside and the respondents be directed to provide necessary amenities to the appellant.
18. On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 was that there is no merit in the present appeal and same be dismissed.
19. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
20. Admittedly the flat of the appellant was constructed by Housefed and Housing Society respondent No.1 was to maintain the flats.
21. It was the liability of appellant alone who purchased the flat at 6th floor. If the appellant and his wife were old persons and were not in a position to go up and down on the flat in 6th floor, the appellant could have purchased another flat on the ground floor at any other place instead of creating of war of words with other allottees or with management of society.
22. Admittedly, the appellant had taken the possession of flat in the year 2002 and it was specified in the delivery possession receipt that the flat was in good condition. If there was seepage of water or if water was entering in the roof of the flat of the appellant or if lifts were not operating, all these things could have been First Appeal No.1147 of 2008 7 done by the allottees of flats, who were members of society respondent No.1 jointly and collectively by cooperating with each other and by accumulating the funds to meet all these requirements.
23. If the lift was not installed or if the generator was not provided, the complaint could have been filed by the appellant immediately thereafter and even otherwise if more amenities were required, the response of the society could have been to collect the money jointly to provide all the remaining amenities. The lift was not only to be used by other members of the society, it was to be used by the appellant also. Therefore, the appellant was bound to make the payment of maintenance in his own interest.
24. The version of the appellant that first of all respondents No.1 & 2 to meet all his requirements and then he would contribute towards maintenance is totally misconceived. The appellant alleges that he had lodged the case against management of the society, but the management also alleges that they have lodged the complaint against the appellant. It is not a good behaviour either on the part of the appellant or for the management.
25. Even if the outlet to the water on the roof is to be provided for the outlet of the over flowing the water or for the outlet of rainy water, it needs money, it needs labour, it needs various other necessary items like providing pipes etc. But if the appellant thinks that the management should do it of its own without any financial contribution by the appellant, it is totally baseless thought. The appellant should be the first person to contribute something and to request the management to collect the contribution from other allottees also and then to take steps to remove the defects and to provide the immediate solution. If the appellant will not contribute, he should not think that the management would be kind to him or the management is legally bound to remove the defects and to provide the amenities and the appellant would be only to enjoy those facilities at the costs of others. Therefore, the appellant himself should contribute and request the management of respondent No.1 that they should live peacefully and they should cooperate with each other to remove the defects of flats and to provide amenities for the use of all of them. Admittedly the appellant has not First Appeal No.1147 of 2008 8 contributed towards the maintenance charges, therefore the appellant has to blame himself for his own suffering.
26. At the same time, the management should not ignore the difficulties of the appellant and collect funds, so that the life of residents society is made comfortable.
27. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
28. The arguments in this case were heard on 7.5.2012 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
29. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Sekhon), Member May 18, 2012.
Davinder