Ajit K. Bhattacharjya vs Brigade Towers Owners Association & 2 Ors

Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member

Heard Ms. Karishma Maria, Advocate, for the appellant and Ms. Renu Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents.

Above appeal has been filed against the order of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, dated 12.08.2021, dismissing Consumer Complaint No.68 of 2015.

Mr. Ajit K. Bhattacharjya (the appellant) filed CC/68/2015, for directing the respondents to pay (i) Rs.60000/-, towards medical expenses incurred by him; (ii) Rs.100000/- as compensation for pain and suffering; (iii) Rs.2000000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and loss of earning; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The complainant stated that he was Managing Director of ABCON Information Systems Private Limited and Proprietor of ABCON Technology and Management. The complainant was tenant in Office No.508, in the building Brigade Towers, Brigade Road, Bangalore and had been regularly paying maintenance charges to opposite party-1. Opposite party-1 was an association formed for looking after the maintenance of the building Brigade Towers, Brigade Road, Bangalore. The complainant served as the President of opposite party-1 during 1993-1994, 1995-1997, 1999-2003 and looked after the upkeep and maintenance of the building diligently, ensuring everything in order. Opposite party-2 was now elected as the President and opposite party-3 was a paid employee of opposite party-1. The complainant took elevator no.1, in the building “Brigade Tower” and headed towards his office No.508 on 22.07.2014. When the complainant was getting out from the elevator, its doors suddenly slammed shut and hit on his body with incredible force, hurting on his right shoulder, which caused immense pain and instant immobility of his right hand. The complainant called the office of opposite party-1 and informed that he had been physically injured due to faulty upkeep of the elevator. Mrs. Uma Devi, Deputy Manager of opposite party-1 visited soon and tendered apology for the incident. Earlier also, the complainant made complaint for fast closing of the lift door to opposite party-1 and also informed its Vice-President and Treasurer but his complaint remained unattended. Regular check of the elevator and certification from Lift Inspector is mandatory. After the incident dated 22.07.2014, the opposite parties obtained a certificate from OTIS, the service provider and pasted inside the lift car. The complainant had to undergo various medical check-up of the injury in his shoulder and for MRI scan. He took physiotherapy on regular basis. Due to injury, his regular duties were affected. He had suffered lot of pain. The complainant gave a legal notice dated 25.10.2014. The opposite parties-2 and 3 along with other members came to the office of the complainant on 12.11.2014 and requested to forgive them and settle the matter. But the opposite parties did not reply his legal notice. The complainant then gave an addendum notice dated 01.01.2015 and demanded compensation, which was replied by the opposite parties vide notice dated 21.01.2015, in which, they denied the incident in elevator. Then the complaint was filed on 20.02.2015,

The opposite parties filed written reply and contested the complaint. The opposite parties stated that the building ‘Brigade Towers’ was a 25 years old building, which consisted more than 80 office spaces of reputed companies and residential flats. The opposite parties entered into an arrangement with OTIS Elevator Company for maintenance and service of the lifts, who renders periodical services of the lifts. They used to perform routine safety test of the lifts. Nearly 100 peoples utilize lift services daily basis and they never received any complaint for lifts. The complainant was negligent in using the lift. The complainant gave legal notice on false allegations, which was replied on 21.01.2015. President and other office bearers merely coordinate to various maintenance activities of the buildings and not a service providers. Although the complainant allegedly received injury on 22.07.2014 but the medical papers of October, 2014 were filed. Further even from these papers, it is not proved that the complainant had received any injury.  The complaint has no merit and liable to be dismissed.

State Commission, after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 12.08.2021, held that the complainant received injury due to his own negligence and was not entitled to claim compensation from the opposite parties. On this finding the complaint was dismissed. Hence this appeal has been filed.

I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. The complainant alleged that he had taken elevator no.1, in the building “Brigade Tower” and headed towards his office No.508 on 22.07.2014. When he was getting out from the elevator, its doors suddenly slammed shut and hit on his body with incredible force, hurting on his right shoulder, which caused immense pain and instant immobility of his right hand. The doors of the lift used to shut automatically. The issue arises for consideration is as to whether, elevator No.1, was having any technical defect on 22.07.2014. Admittedly the appellant has not adduced any technical examination report to prove that the elevator No.1 was suffering from any defect on 22.07.2014. In the absence of any report, pointing out any defect in elevator no.1 on 22.07.2014, it cannot be held that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in maintenance of elevator.

ORDER

In view of aforesaid discussions, the appeal is dismissed.