AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Commission dated 30.11.2017 in Appeal No.RBT/A/15/1102 of the respondent and Appeal No.A/12/789 of the petitioner.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had done repairing work in the flats of the respondents No.1 to 4 in the year 2003. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 found the repairing work of inferior quality and their houses were leaking in the rainy season. They made a complaint. Thereafter, the petitioner had again done the repairing work. The said repairing work was found of poor quality and aggrieved by the same, the respondents No.1 to 4 filed a complaint against the petitioner and respondents No.5 to 7 alleging deficiency in service on their part and demanding the repair of their subject flats and compensation for mental agony to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards cost to each of the complainant besides other reliefs. The petitioner had filed its written version raising various pleas including that the water proofing work at the terrace could not be done since the complainants were not cooperating and showed their willingness to do the water proofing of the terrace. It was further contended that all the other repairing work had been done by the respondents twice.
Parties led their evidences before the District Forum and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidences, the District Forum reached to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner as repairing work was not done properly and issued following directions: -
The complaint No.60/200 is being partly allowed and the respondent are directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) on account of cost of complaint and should bear the cost of self on their own.
The respondent No.1, 1/B, 2 and 3 should independently and collectively carry out the water proofing work of the terrace of the building of the complainant society from an expert person and the water proofing work should be done having used china chips on the entire terrace and the inner walls of the parapet wall of the terrace having used skilled masons for this work under the supervision of civil engineer so that the water leakage would be controlled to a great extent. Whereas, having carried out the repair work of the inside passage walls, ceiling and staircases of the building its report should be prepared. Whereas, the Respondent No3 should carry out the plastering of the walls in the flats of the complainant.
The Respondent No.1, 1/B, 2 and 3 should independently and collectively carry out the plastering work of the outside walls of the building, inside beams and ceiling of the suit building and fill up the cracks and holes. This work should be done under the supervision of the civil engineer and experts and accordingly the report should be kept ready. But the respondent having determined the suitable fresh cess amount should arrange for the repair cost out of the amount received from the residents through the said cess. The implementation of the said order should be done within 2 months of receiving the cess amount for repair work from everyone.
The respondent should pay the complainants a total compensation for the mental distress suffered by them of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand only).
The copy of the said order be given to both the parties as per Rules.
This order was impugned by both the complainants and by the petitioner by way of independent appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and while allowing the appeal of the complainants increased the compensation for mental agony to Rs.15,000/- per complainant and also awarded cost of Rs.5,000/- aggregate jointly to all the complainants. The order of the State Commission is reproduced as under: -
"The appeal No.RBT/A/15/2012 is partly allowed and appeal No.A/12/789 is dismissed.
The order dated 6/6/2011 passed by the Central Mumbai Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Parel, Mumbai in Consumer Complaint No.60/2005 is modified as under: -
The complaint No.60/2005 is partly allowed.
The opponents are held responsible for deficiency in service.
The opponent Nos. 1, 1B, 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) to each of the complainant towards compensation for the damages done to their respective premises, for continuing the incomplete repairs, not carrying out the necessary repairs and executing the repairs by very inferior quality of work leading to several leakages in various parts of the building alongwith other defects.
The opponent Nos.1, 1B, 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) to each of the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and harassment.
The opponent Nos.1, 1B, 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) to complainants as total cost sof the complaint and also to pay Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) to complainants who are appellants in appeal No.RBT/A/15/1102 and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in Appeal No.A/12/789 as total cost of appeals.
The rest of the parts of impugned order i.e. clauses Nos. 2 & 3 remain unchanged without any modification, if not already complied by the concerned opponents."
This order is impugned before us. It is argued that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners and during the pendency of the appeal they had complied with the directions of the District Forum to the extent that they did repair work in flats of the respondents No.1 to 4. It is submitted that no reasons have been given by the State Commission while granting the compensation for the damages done to the premises and also directing the payment of Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainants towards mental agony and further directing payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint and Rs.5,000/- as total cost of appeal.
It is also alleged that there is no privity of contract and they were not responsible for the repair of the flats. It is contended that it is Municipal Corporation i.e. respondent No.5 who was collecting the cess, responsible for deficiency if any and petitioners are not liable to pay any damages.
We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Admitted facts are that there was leakage in various parts of the flats. It is also admitted fact that during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner in compliance of the directions of the District Forum removed the defects. In regard to the privity of contract, there is finding of the Fora below on this point which cannot be faulted.
The next argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that without giving any reasons the State Commission has enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.15,000/- as damages and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the litigation while allowing the complaint and dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. From perusal of the impugned order and from the facts of the case it is apparent that the petitioners had done the first repair which was not satisfactory. On complaint they again repaired the premises of respondents No. 1 to 4 which were again non-satisfactory. The complainants have suffered for many years on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and continued to spend their days and night in a house which was leaking through its roof besides having other defects.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the amount of compensation as awarded by the State Commission is fully justified. We found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed.