State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.Ghanashyam Shankar ... vs Bhawani Co-Op.Hsg.Soc. Ltd on 15 May, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMM CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.221/2010 Date of filing: 25/02/2010 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.63/2009 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : Thane Date of Order: 15/05/2010 Mr.Ghanashyam Shankar Pawaskar, Appellant Bhawani Co-Op.Housing Society Ltd. (Org.Complainant) B Wing, 3rd floor, Block no.14, Old Mumbai-Pune Road, Kalwa (West) Thane 400 605. V/s. 1. Bhawani Co-Op.Hsg.Soc. Ltd., Respondents Mr.Vijay Raajaram Kadam, Chairman, (Org.Opp.Party) Bhawani Co-Op.Hsg.Soc. Ltd., 3/A, Old Mumbai-Pune Road, Kalwa (West) Thane 400 605. 2.. Mr.Vikas Sudhakar Mayekar, Bhawani Co-Op.Hsg.Soc. Ltd., 3/A, Old Mumbai-Pune Road, Kalwa (West) Thane 400 605. 3. Sahakari Adhikari, Mr.Anil H.Patil, 3/A, Old Mumbai-Pune Road, Kalwa (West) Thane 400 605. Quorum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honble Member Appearance : Adv.Shari Laxman D.Thorat for appellant.
Adv.Shri S.D.Tigde for respondent.
-: ORDER :-
Per Smt.S.P.Lale , Honble Member:
This appeal is directed against dismissal order passed by District Consumer Forum, Thane in consumer complaint no. 63/2009 decided on 30/12/2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant himself has filed the present appeal. The case of the complainant in the Forum below was that he was bonafide member and share holder of the opp.party/society, named as Bhawani Co-Op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd., Kalwa. According to complainant, he is regularly paying maintenance and service charges to the opp.party/society. It is stated by the complainant that according to by-law no.160 of said Co-Operative Hsg.Soc. following services are to be provided by them:
(i)All internal roads, (ii) Compound walls, (iii) External water pipe line, (iv) Water Pumps,
(v) Water Storage tank, (vi) Drainage lanes, (vii) Septic tanks, (viii) Stair case, (ix) Terrace and parapet walls, (x) structural repairs of the roofs of the flats, (xi) stair cases lights, (xii) street light, (xiii) outside walls of the building/buildings, (xiv) all leakages of water including leakages due to rain water, and leakages due to external common pipe line and drain line, (xxv) Electric line up to main switches in the flats, (xvi) Lifts, (xvii ) the damaged ceiling and plaster thereon in the top floor flats, on account of the rain water through the terrace.
It is further submitted by the complainant that all the repairs not covered under by-law no.160 (a) shall be carried out by the members at their own costs. It is alleged by the complainant that complainant had lodged several complaints on opp.party/society on various dates viz, 06/04/2004, 05/11/2004, 04/03/2005, 30/06/2007, 27/07/2007, ,22/02/2008,20/05/2008, ,28/06/2008 regarding repairs and maintenance of the damaged terrace & outside walls of the Societys building in which appellant is residing and holding/occupying flat no.14 of building B on 3rd floor. The complainant submitted that due to non repair of terrace and outside walls of the said building by the respondent society, the problem of rain water leakage and seepage through terrace and outside wall of the building persist and has caused and continue to cause the damage to the ceiling, plaster, interior decoration, colour, electric wiring of the flat, furniture inside the flat of the appellant. The appellant appointed one structural engineer & Architect to take condition survey of his flat no. 14, 3rd floor, B Building. The estimated cost for repair of damaged caused to the flat of the appellant is approximately Rs.69,400/-. Said report also has been submitted by the complainant to the opp.party but the opp.party/society did not take any cognizance of the said complaint and even not replied to the complainants letters. Complainant has served a legal notice to the opp.party/society by its advocate on 07/10/2008, but the opp.party/society failed and neglected even to reply the said notice. Opp.party/society has also failed and did not bother to repair the said damages and leakage of the terrace and outside walls of the said building and therefore, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum for deficiency in service.
Opp.party filed written statement and contested the claim of the complainant. It pleaded that complaint of complainant must be dismissed for non-joinder of the parties. It contended that complainant has not lodged any written complaint to the society. On 27/6/2008 Annual General Meeting was conducted by the parties and it was decided in the meeting that all the defects of the terrace and leakage will be removed. However, because of non-cooperation of the complainant water proofing works could not be done. It further pleaded that complainant has submitted Architect report but not actual bills. Administrator has been appointed and constituted from 20/05/2009 to look after the works of repairs. It has also decided to complete the repair work of water proofing of terrace and walls. Opp.party finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint. After considering the documents placed before it and hearing the parties, Ld.District Forum dismissed the complaint and passed the impugned order.
We heard Adv.Shari Laxman D.Thorat for appellant and Adv.Shri S.D.Tigde for respondent.
It is the contention of the appellant that there is leakage in the flat of the appellant from 2004 to 2008 and the same has been brought to the notice of respondent/society. But respondent/society did not carry out any work to stop the leakages. It is the contention of the respondent that appellant has failed to place on record any cogent evidence about his complaint lodged with the respondent /society. On 28/06/2008 respondent has made the complaint that there is leakage in his flat but failed to file any complaint for the period 2002 to 2008. Respondent further contended that from 28/06/2008 the Administrator has been appointed and he is looking after the affairs of the society. It is pertinent to note that in the Annual General Body meeting which was held on 27/07/2008, it was decided to carry out the water proofing work of the entire terrace and for removing leakage a different arrangement was to be done. At that time the appellant himself was present and had accepted and agreed to the suggestion of respondent/society that appellant will first remove the alleged leakage problem of the flat owner residing below the appellant and then the respondent/society will carry out the repair works of the terrace and side walls of the building of the society. It was condition precedent. Therefore, District Consumer Forum has rightly recorded the same in its finding and dismissed the complaint. We find no substance in the appeal. Appeal is devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed. Hence, we pass the following order:-
:-ORDER-:
1.
Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.
(S.P.Lale) (P.N.Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member Nbh