It is the society's responsibility by law, to undertake the expenses caused by any leakage precipitated by water seepage into flats during the rains
When Kantilal Satra approached his society's secretary to resolve a water leakage problem from the terrace that had caused phenomenal loss' to his topmost-floor home, the secretary brushed it off by saying that another member had been paid Rs 10,000 last monsoon, following a general body resolution to `do the water-proofing' of the terrace and that the issue was closed. The secretary even went ahead and launched a spiteful correspondence campaign against the member who sadly wasn't even familiar with the medium of communication. Satra was left twiddling his thumbs over a matter that risked blowing out of proportion with the rains just around the corner. The onus, by law, rests solely upon the cooperative housing society's managing committee which has to resolve all leakage issues.
The rains began and fetched, with them, spoilage to Satra's flat.The society's secretary disbursed `waterproofing' fees for a neighbour, completely out of turn and place, in law. Like Kantilal's society secretary, the city's thousands continue to elbow their responsibility of tackling water leakage issues and terrace repairs that need to be dealt with urgently .
> MOVE CONSUMER COURT FOR DERELICTION OF DUTY
Simin Kapadia's case is similar. She too, has a top-floor flat at a south Mumbai residence and has had water seeping through the ceiling, right into her living room, spoiling just about everything she has by way of furnishings in her home. “I will move the consumer court for dereliction of duty ,“ says a belligerent Kapadia. The onus of performance lies squarely on the shoulders of the cooperative housing society, which tends to shrug it off as a rule. When Kapadia approached her society's managing committee, it instead reprimanded her for performing urgent repairs to her ceiling leakage `without permission from the managing committee' and instead, asked her for an apology in writing and a deposit of Rs 50,000 before she conducted any further repairs `at her own cost'.
> APPROACH REGISTRAR FOR LEGAL RESPITE...NOW
The process for them to follow, keeping in mind that thousands across the city are suffering from a similar plight, is to approach the Registrar with the issue and bring the contention of the society's managing committee before him. Preferably, produce documentary evidence of the secretary and managing committee's claims and suggestions that are aimed to absolve themselves of the onus of terrace repairs and, which as a fact, rests upon them. Under model bylaw 160 a (xvii), the onus of repairing `legal and licensed' roofs of the flat and ceiling and the plaster thereon, on the top floor on account of the leakages of the rainwater through the terrace, rests upon the society and not the individual.
Now, Kantilal Satra's society's secretary, has been attempting to pave the way for a contentious plaster job in another top-floor flat while remaining silent on a `bonafide' leakage in Kantilal's flat. This sort of ambiguous and inequitable treatment of members' issues has to be put to question in a court of law.
> CHS COMPENSATES FOR DAMAGE
It may be recalled that in a landmark decision, a consumer forum had ordered a cooperative housing society in Mumbai's Chembur to pay nearly Rs one lakh in compensation to a member. Interestingly, the compensation paid was for `the damage caused to his flat by renovation in the flat above.' By the same logic, even damage caused to `legal' structures by repairs to selective sections of the terrace can call for compensation.
The proximate relation between the damage and the act of repair will have to be ascertained by a civic body approved structural engineer. The Chembur society decision has had serious ramifications in societies across Maharashtra while heralding the way ahead, as a valid moot point for others all over the nation.
While the legal process is perceived as being long drawn and cumbersome, dissuading most cooperative housing society members from moving court to avail justice, the members, also consumers of a service provided by the cooperative housing society, can move consumer forum.
> DETAILS OF CHEMBUR'S LANDMARK CASE
In this case, the forum held the society guilty of deficiency in service because neither did it take any action against the flat owner who caused the damage nor did it make any attempt to recover costs from him. It said, “There is no doubt that since the complainant was a member of the society, he was its consumer and the society was a service provider. It is responsible to pay the complainant.“ The compensation to be paid by the erring society, Mithul Enclave Housing Society Ltd, included Rs 55,000 as repair costs and Rs 44,500 for litigation costs, mental harassment and as interest.
In the complaint filed before the Additional Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhimrao Jogdand said flat owner Bhalchandra Patil began extensive renovation inside his flat in 2006 resulting in leakages in his flat below. On August 24 that year, Jogdand wrote to the society about the problem. He informed Patil, too, and sought reimbursement of the repair costs. In May 2007, as is usually the case with cooperative housing societies across Mumbai, the society told Patil he was responsible for the damages and would have to compensate Jogdand. Patil did not and the society absolved itself of all responsibility. Jogdand finally sent registered notices to both in 2009, yet, got no response. He then filed a complaint. The society and Patil filed independent replies denying the allegations. Both claimed Jogdand's flat was damaged because it had been lying unused for long.
After taking into consideration photographs of the damaged flat submitted by the complainant along with copies of the correspondence, the forum accepted that the renovation had caused the damages. It also observed that despite notices, the society made no attempt to stop the work in Patil's flat and neither did it complain to civic authorities. Hence, the society was guilty of deficiency in service and would have to compensate the member for the losses suffered.
For members who suffer losses due to inaction on part of the cooperative housing society's managing committee, which chooses to look the other way each time a civic anomaly occurs and a member goes about making structural changes causing damage to others, the decision is a precedent of sorts. Jogdand's decision is a case in point when it comes to deciding similar matters. Societies adopting the `did-themandatory-correspondence' approach each time they encounter a situation like Jogdand's, will need to sit up and take note.
The society that assumes the role of a service provider will need to compensate the consumer, in this case, the member, each time there's a deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Going the Consumer Forum way is the best forward for members, who can argue their cases here without having to avail the services of a lawyer too.
(The writer is an independent legal counsel who heads a voluntary social initiative, DraftCraft Connect)
Foreign Direct Investment is direct investment into manufacturing or other industries in a country by a single company of some other nation either through buying in the intended country or by growing operations of a business existent in that country. Foreign direct investment is just the opposite to portfolio investment which can be described as a passive investment in the securities of some other country such as stocks and bonds.
REIT
Real Estate Investment Trust is a company that owns, and in a lot of cases, also produces incomeproducing real estate. REITs possess many kinds of commercial real estate, right from office and apartment buildings to warehouses, hospitals, shopping centres, hotels, etc.
Some REITs also get involved in financing real estate. The REIT structure was created to provide a real estate investment structure which is similar to the structure that mutual funds provide for investment in stocks. QUICK BYTE IN A LANDMARK DECISION, A CONSUMER FORUM HAD ORDERED A COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY IN MUMBAI'S CHEMBUR TO PAY NEARLY RS ONE LAKH IN COMPENSATION TO A MEMBER.
INTERESTINGLY, THE COMPENSATION PAID WAS FOR `THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO HIS FLAT BY RENOVATION IN THE FLAT ABOVE.' BY THE SAME LOGIC, EVEN DAMAGE CAUSED TO `LEGAL' STRUCTURES BY REPAIRS TO SELECTIVE SECTIONS OF THE TERRACE CAN CALL FOR COMPENSATION.
The rains began and fetched, with them, spoilage to Satra's flat.The society's secretary disbursed `waterproofing' fees for a neighbour, completely out of turn and place, in law. Like Kantilal's society secretary, the city's thousands continue to elbow their responsibility of tackling water leakage issues and terrace repairs that need to be dealt with urgently .
> MOVE CONSUMER COURT FOR DERELICTION OF DUTY
Simin Kapadia's case is similar. She too, has a top-floor flat at a south Mumbai residence and has had water seeping through the ceiling, right into her living room, spoiling just about everything she has by way of furnishings in her home. “I will move the consumer court for dereliction of duty ,“ says a belligerent Kapadia. The onus of performance lies squarely on the shoulders of the cooperative housing society, which tends to shrug it off as a rule. When Kapadia approached her society's managing committee, it instead reprimanded her for performing urgent repairs to her ceiling leakage `without permission from the managing committee' and instead, asked her for an apology in writing and a deposit of Rs 50,000 before she conducted any further repairs `at her own cost'.
> APPROACH REGISTRAR FOR LEGAL RESPITE...NOW
The process for them to follow, keeping in mind that thousands across the city are suffering from a similar plight, is to approach the Registrar with the issue and bring the contention of the society's managing committee before him. Preferably, produce documentary evidence of the secretary and managing committee's claims and suggestions that are aimed to absolve themselves of the onus of terrace repairs and, which as a fact, rests upon them. Under model bylaw 160 a (xvii), the onus of repairing `legal and licensed' roofs of the flat and ceiling and the plaster thereon, on the top floor on account of the leakages of the rainwater through the terrace, rests upon the society and not the individual.
Now, Kantilal Satra's society's secretary, has been attempting to pave the way for a contentious plaster job in another top-floor flat while remaining silent on a `bonafide' leakage in Kantilal's flat. This sort of ambiguous and inequitable treatment of members' issues has to be put to question in a court of law.
> CHS COMPENSATES FOR DAMAGE
It may be recalled that in a landmark decision, a consumer forum had ordered a cooperative housing society in Mumbai's Chembur to pay nearly Rs one lakh in compensation to a member. Interestingly, the compensation paid was for `the damage caused to his flat by renovation in the flat above.' By the same logic, even damage caused to `legal' structures by repairs to selective sections of the terrace can call for compensation.
The proximate relation between the damage and the act of repair will have to be ascertained by a civic body approved structural engineer. The Chembur society decision has had serious ramifications in societies across Maharashtra while heralding the way ahead, as a valid moot point for others all over the nation.
While the legal process is perceived as being long drawn and cumbersome, dissuading most cooperative housing society members from moving court to avail justice, the members, also consumers of a service provided by the cooperative housing society, can move consumer forum.
> DETAILS OF CHEMBUR'S LANDMARK CASE
In this case, the forum held the society guilty of deficiency in service because neither did it take any action against the flat owner who caused the damage nor did it make any attempt to recover costs from him. It said, “There is no doubt that since the complainant was a member of the society, he was its consumer and the society was a service provider. It is responsible to pay the complainant.“ The compensation to be paid by the erring society, Mithul Enclave Housing Society Ltd, included Rs 55,000 as repair costs and Rs 44,500 for litigation costs, mental harassment and as interest.
In the complaint filed before the Additional Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhimrao Jogdand said flat owner Bhalchandra Patil began extensive renovation inside his flat in 2006 resulting in leakages in his flat below. On August 24 that year, Jogdand wrote to the society about the problem. He informed Patil, too, and sought reimbursement of the repair costs. In May 2007, as is usually the case with cooperative housing societies across Mumbai, the society told Patil he was responsible for the damages and would have to compensate Jogdand. Patil did not and the society absolved itself of all responsibility. Jogdand finally sent registered notices to both in 2009, yet, got no response. He then filed a complaint. The society and Patil filed independent replies denying the allegations. Both claimed Jogdand's flat was damaged because it had been lying unused for long.
After taking into consideration photographs of the damaged flat submitted by the complainant along with copies of the correspondence, the forum accepted that the renovation had caused the damages. It also observed that despite notices, the society made no attempt to stop the work in Patil's flat and neither did it complain to civic authorities. Hence, the society was guilty of deficiency in service and would have to compensate the member for the losses suffered.
For members who suffer losses due to inaction on part of the cooperative housing society's managing committee, which chooses to look the other way each time a civic anomaly occurs and a member goes about making structural changes causing damage to others, the decision is a precedent of sorts. Jogdand's decision is a case in point when it comes to deciding similar matters. Societies adopting the `did-themandatory-correspondence' approach each time they encounter a situation like Jogdand's, will need to sit up and take note.
The society that assumes the role of a service provider will need to compensate the consumer, in this case, the member, each time there's a deficiency in service according to the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Going the Consumer Forum way is the best forward for members, who can argue their cases here without having to avail the services of a lawyer too.
(The writer is an independent legal counsel who heads a voluntary social initiative, DraftCraft Connect)
GLOSSARY
FDIForeign Direct Investment is direct investment into manufacturing or other industries in a country by a single company of some other nation either through buying in the intended country or by growing operations of a business existent in that country. Foreign direct investment is just the opposite to portfolio investment which can be described as a passive investment in the securities of some other country such as stocks and bonds.
REIT
Real Estate Investment Trust is a company that owns, and in a lot of cases, also produces incomeproducing real estate. REITs possess many kinds of commercial real estate, right from office and apartment buildings to warehouses, hospitals, shopping centres, hotels, etc.
Some REITs also get involved in financing real estate. The REIT structure was created to provide a real estate investment structure which is similar to the structure that mutual funds provide for investment in stocks. QUICK BYTE IN A LANDMARK DECISION, A CONSUMER FORUM HAD ORDERED A COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY IN MUMBAI'S CHEMBUR TO PAY NEARLY RS ONE LAKH IN COMPENSATION TO A MEMBER.
INTERESTINGLY, THE COMPENSATION PAID WAS FOR `THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO HIS FLAT BY RENOVATION IN THE FLAT ABOVE.' BY THE SAME LOGIC, EVEN DAMAGE CAUSED TO `LEGAL' STRUCTURES BY REPAIRS TO SELECTIVE SECTIONS OF THE TERRACE CAN CALL FOR COMPENSATION.
No comments:
Post a Comment