Back
2010 Supreme(Bom) 1215
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ROSHAN DALVI
GMM Pfaudler Limited
Versus
TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Limited & Others
Notice of Motion No.3741 of 2008 IN Suit No.3022 of 2008
Date of Judgment : 30-08-2010
For the Plaintiff:Simil Purohit with Gaurav Joshi i/by Udwadia & Udeshi, Advocates. For the Defendants:D1, R. Narichania with A. Sancheti, Advocates, i/by Paras Kuhad, D2, Ashwin Sakholkar i/by Vidhi Partners, Associates, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of nuisance and interference with the enjoyment of premises requires a consideration of reasonableness and the impact on the affected party's ordinary comfort of life, judged by ordinary plain and simple notions, and having regard to the locality.
Headnote:
Nuisance - Air Conditioning Chillers - Salmond & Heuston on the Law of Torts, Twentieth Edition - Vanderpant vs. Mayfair Hotel Company Limited, (1930) Chancery Division 138 - Walter v. Selfe (1851) 4 De G. & S. 315 - Bridlington Relay vs. Yorkshire Electricity Board, (1965) 1 All England Report 264 - Baxter vs. Camden London Borough Council, (1999) 1 All England Law Reports 237 - Janki Prasad & ors. vs. Karmat Husain & ors., ILR 53 Allahabad 836 - Soltau vs. De Held, (1851) 2 Sim. (N.S.) 133 - Heath vs. Mayor etc. of Brighton, (19) (1908) L.T., 718 - Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Ltd. vs. Wednesbury Corporation, 1947 (2) All England Law Reports 680 - State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. vs. Hazarilal, (2008) 3 SCC 273
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff's premises suffered from noise and vibration caused by air conditioning chillers installed by Defendant No.1 on the terrace of the building. The Plaintiff claimed structural damage and sought an injunction to abate the nuisance.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the noise and vibration did not constitute an actionable tort of nuisance. The Plaintiff's claim of damage to the ceiling and walls was deemed nonexistent. The Plaintiff's premises were large enough to relocate the affected areas to mitigate the disturbance.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of whether the noise and vibration from the air conditioning chillers constituted an actionable nuisance and if the Plaintiff was entitled to an injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered various legal principles from cases such as Vanderpant vs. Mayfair Hotel Company Limited, Walter v. Selfe, Bridlington Relay vs. Yorkshire Electricity Board, and others to assess the reasonableness of the nuisance and interference with the Plaintiff's enjoyment of the premises.
Final Decision: The Court held that the Plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case for an injunction and ruled that there shall be no order on the Notice of Motion. No order as to costs.
1. The Plaintiff’s action is in essence a common law action upon nuisance committed by Defendant No.1 which is actionable as a tort. The Plaintiff occupies and owns the top floor of the building Peninsula Towers (the said building) at Peninsula Corporate Park. The terrace of the Plaintiff’s building is just above the Plaintiff’s premises. Defendant No.1 occupies the 6th floor of the said building owned by Defendant No.3.
2. It is the Plaintiff’s case that Defendant No.1 acquired its premises in June 2004 and put up air conditioning chiller plant consisting of 3 chillers on the terrace of the said building above the Plaintiff’s premises. The chiller plant causes vibration and noise in the office premises of the Plaintiff. That constitutes a nuisance to the Plaintiff. It has also been the Plaintiff’s case that the vibration of the chillers has caused cracks in the walls and the ceilings of the Plaintiff’s premises and structural damage thereto. The Plaintiff contends that it is a threat to the safety and stability of the building.
3. It is the Plaintiff’s case that chiller plant required buffers to minimise the vibration and stress on the building structure which Defendant No.1 did not provide. The chillers were installed in the terrace without support of the cement blocks or rubber pads to absorb the weight and the vibration of the chillers. Defendant No.1 was requested to use the cement blocks which would absorb vibration and the weight of the chillers under certain expert’s report obtained by the Plaintiff.
4. Defendant No.1, as the Plaintiff’s neighbour, agreed to take corrective steps. It, upon the report of its expert, caused certain amends to be made to abate the nuisance of noise and vibration, despite which, the Plaintiff contends that noise and vibration continued.
5. The parties have filed numerous affidavits of themselves and of their experts upon certain joint inspection. Both the parties have produced experts reports which are highly technical, and except for abiding by the opinion contained therein, if any, and viable, they are of little use to consider the legal rights of the parties.
6. The correspondence between the parties and their Advocates alleges nuisance and disturbance.
7. The parties have been unable to come to a conciliation of their dispute for the working of the chillers or its construction. The Court must, therefore, see whether the tort of nuisance is made out by the Plaintiff.
8. The Court, therefore, has visited the Plaintiff’s premises as well as the terrace where the chillers have been installed by Defendant No.3 to absorb and feel the noise and vibration as also to see the structural damage, if any, to the Plaintiff’s premises or any part thereof. The inspection was taken in the presence of the Advocates and Counsel as well as the representatives of both the parties.
9. Defendant No.1 has installed three chillers close to one another on one massive unit on one part of the terrace which is directly above a large part of the conference room of the Plaintiff's office premises. There are various other chillers of various other parties on the terrace. Another chiller of a third party, against whom no action is taken, is above another cabin / room of the Plaintiff’s premises on the other side of the Plaintiff’s premises. Those chillers are also installed on another huge unit.
10. The Plaintiff’s representative showed the Court essentially the conference room over which the chillers of Defendant No.1 have been installed. It was stated that that part of the Plaintiff’s otherwise large premises suffered most from the vibration and noise from the chillers. The other room under the chiller of a third party was also stated to have suffered from vibration and noise which were also shown to the Court and observed by the Court as well as the parties and their representatives.
11. Defendant No.1 has three chillers on its unit. Because of the complaints of the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 fixed th
