In a significant judgment, the South Mumbai Consumer Forum has held that a flat owner legally occupying the flat would be a consumer, even if his title to the flat might be in dispute before a competent court.
Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat.
After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society.
The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned enough income from a cell phone tower erected on its terrace.
When the Appuswami family wanted to renovate their flat, the society refused to grant permission and obstructed work. The Society stated it would allow the renovation only if suitable orders were obtained from the court.
The Appuswamis filed a consumer complaint. They claimed they were beneficiaries of the services availed of by the deceased Thurlow, and would be considered consumers. Even though the issue of inheritance was pending, the High Court had permitted them to use and occupy till the issue was decided. So they had every right to keep their flat in proper habitable condition, and renovation would not cause any harm or prejudice the society's claim.
The society, on the other hand, claimed a consumer complaint was not maintainable as the Appuswamis had not been recognised as members. The society also argued that no case could be filed before first giving a notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
The Consumer Forum observed Section 164 was not applicable to consumer complaints. Beside, the Appuswami family had clearly put the society to notice by writing for permission to carry out repairs, and stating the society would be liable if permission was not granted. The Forum observed as maintenance charges had been collected, the consumer complaint was maintainable. The issue of inheritance before the High Court would not debar the filing of a consumer complaint for repairs.
The Appuswami family had filed an architect's report setting out the scope of the repair work. Accepting this report, the Forum directed the society to grant permission to carry out the repairs. By its order of December 9, 2014, delivered by Presiding Officer S M Ratnakar for the Bench, along with S G Chabukawar, the Forum held that there was deficiency in service, and awarded Rs 10,000 for the mental harassment and Rs 5,000 as costs.
Print Page
Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat.
After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society.
The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned enough income from a cell phone tower erected on its terrace.
When the Appuswami family wanted to renovate their flat, the society refused to grant permission and obstructed work. The Society stated it would allow the renovation only if suitable orders were obtained from the court.
The Appuswamis filed a consumer complaint. They claimed they were beneficiaries of the services availed of by the deceased Thurlow, and would be considered consumers. Even though the issue of inheritance was pending, the High Court had permitted them to use and occupy till the issue was decided. So they had every right to keep their flat in proper habitable condition, and renovation would not cause any harm or prejudice the society's claim.
The society, on the other hand, claimed a consumer complaint was not maintainable as the Appuswamis had not been recognised as members. The society also argued that no case could be filed before first giving a notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
The Consumer Forum observed Section 164 was not applicable to consumer complaints. Beside, the Appuswami family had clearly put the society to notice by writing for permission to carry out repairs, and stating the society would be liable if permission was not granted. The Forum observed as maintenance charges had been collected, the consumer complaint was maintainable. The issue of inheritance before the High Court would not debar the filing of a consumer complaint for repairs.
The Appuswami family had filed an architect's report setting out the scope of the repair work. Accepting this report, the Forum directed the society to grant permission to carry out the repairs. By its order of December 9, 2014, delivered by Presiding Officer S M Ratnakar for the Bench, along with S G Chabukawar, the Forum held that there was deficiency in service, and awarded Rs 10,000 for the mental harassment and Rs 5,000 as costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment