A consumer forum here has ordered a flat owner to pay Rs two lakhs to a resident on a floor below his as cost of repairs for leakages and compensation.
Complainant Nandakumar Rege, the CEO of Thane District Housing Co-Operative Federation, stated that his flat on the ground floor of Manali building at Abhinav co-operative housing society in Vishnunagar locality here had leakages due to a defect on the upper floor flat of Milind Masurkar.
He said he had asked Masurkar to carry out repairs and plug the leakages, but the latter did not respond. Hence, he informed Masurkar that he would carry out the repairs and that he (Masurkar) should reimburse the cost, to which also the latter did not respond.
Rege, in his complaint filed before the forum in 2010, demanded Rs 1,23,000 as charges for repairs carried out in 2009, Rs 1,26,000 as compensation, Rs 2 lakh for physical sufferings, and Rs 5,000 towards legal expenses from Masurkar.
However, the respondent dismissed all allegations and said that Rege should have complained to the housing society about the problems, but he preferred to rush to the consumer forum with his complaint and that his intention was to allegedly extract money from him.
He also said that the leakage was not from his flat, but from the external portion of the building for which he could not be held responsible Thane District Consumer Redressal Forum president Umesh Jhawalikar and member N D Kadam, after hearing both the sides, last week concluded that from the documents and pictures placed before the forum, it was proved that the complainant had to avoid further damage to his flat for which he got the repairs done.
The forum also accepted the quotation issued by the contractor for the repairs and held that the respondent was referring to the bylaws just to shirk his responsibility.
Hence, it held that the objections raised by the respondent cannot be accepted. The second respondent, the housing society, was not represented and the forum held that as the complainant had not specifically made any allegations against the society, it was not being brought into picture at all. Hence the respondent was ordered to pay Rs 1 lakh towards the repairs and an equal amount as compensation to the complainant.