Society liable for failing to carry out repairs

Many times it is observed that the spirit of cooperation is missing within co-operative housing societies. Consequently, certain members are made to suffer either due to indifference on the part of the Managing Committee, or out of vindictiveness towards a member who tries to assert his rights. Here is the case of an 88-year-old senior citizen who fought for his rights and succeeded.

Narayan Vithal Deshpande held a flat in Devadiga Cooperative Housing Society at Andheri in Mumbai. He complained of heavy leakage of water from the terrace because of which his flat and his furniture had got spoilt. As the Society failed to attend to the leakage, Deshpande filed a complaint with the Mumbai Suburban District Forum seeking a direction to the Society to get his flat repaired, and to provide an alternative accommodation during the intervening period. He also alleged that the Society had failed to furnish a copy of the bye-laws and minutes of the general body meeting.

The Society contested the complaint. It challenged the jurisdiction of the consumer forum to adjudicate a dispute between the Society and its members. It claimed that Deshpande had carried out illegal alterations within his flat. The Society also alleged that Deshpande had filed a false complaint to harass the Society for having levied a fine of Rs1,000 for leaving a tap open, as he did not want to pay this amount. However, the Society admitted that there was leakage from the terrace, but claimed that despite having got it attended to, leakage did not stop as the building was old and not in good condition.

The Society was required to produce the minutes, which revealed that other flat holder besides Deshpande had repeatedly complained about leakage from the terrace. The documents produced by the Society also revealed that an architect had been appointed to inspect the terrace and repairs had been carried out, but the leakage continued as the building was over 30 years old. The Forum concluded that Deshpande was a consumer of the Society since he was paying maintenance charges, and the Society was obliged to undertake proper repairs to stop the leakage. It held that Deshpande's claim of compensation was justified, and ordered the Society to pay Rs50,000 within 30 days, or along with 18 per cent interest in case of delay. Additionally, litigation cost of Rs10,000 was also awarded.

The Society challenged this order through an appeal, but repeatedly failed to appear when the case was listed for hearing. The Maharashtra State Commission concluded that the Society's conduct showed that the appeal had been filed to avoid complying with the Forum's order, and to deprive an 88-year-old consumer from getting the compensation due to him. The State Commission observed that the Forum's order was well reasoned and that the Society was liable to repair the terrace and put it in good condition.Accordingly, by its order of February 28, 2017 delivered by Justice A.P. 

Bhangale for the Bench along with Judicial Member D.R. Shirsao, the Maharashtra State Commission dismissed the Society's appeal and ordered it to pay further costs of Rs 25,000.  
The writer is a consumer activist