The main legal point established is that damages for tortious claims must be real and proximate, and compensation can be granted if causation is established. The Court also emphasized that the full equivalent of money can be granted as compensation or damages in such cases.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done by video conferencing.

2. The present second appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 5th February, 2019 upholding the original judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2017 with some modifications. The original suit was filed by Shri Gajender Chopra i.e., the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") against Shri Sushil Kumar Jain i.e., the Defendant/Appellant (hereinafter, "Defendant") for permanent and mandatory injunction along with damages.

3. The Plaintiff is resident of SFS Flat No.59, Second floor, Pocket-D, Mayur Vihar Phase-II, New Delhi-110091. The Defendant is resident of SFS Flat No.60, which is located on the third floor of the same building. The problem of seepage arose in the Plaintiff's flat, leading to the filing of the present suit.

4. Written statement was filed by the Defendant and evidence was led. Both parties also filed their respective technical reports of civil engineers, along with their estimates. Cross examination was conducted. Vide the trial court judgment dated 28th February, 2017, the relief of permanent injunction was granted in favour of the Plaintiff and a total sum of Rs.70,000/- was directed to be paid to the Plaintiff towards damages and an additional Rs.50,000/- was awarded on account of mental harassment and agony. The operative portion of the trial court judgment reads as under:

"Relief

44. In view of the above discussion, suit of the plaintiff stands decreed in the following terms-

1. Plaintiff is held entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, whereby the defendant is restrained from damaging the property of the plaintiff.

2. In respect of the relief of mandatory injunction, defendant is to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the plaintiff towards the estimated cost of correcting/repairing the problem of seepage. This amount is to paid within one month of this order. Upon payment, the plaintiff would have two months to undertake all necessary repairs to fix the problem of seepage, as required. During these two months, the defendant is directed to give access to the plaintiff to the affected portions of his flat at all reasonable times of the day (Flat no.60, Pocket D, Mayur Vihar Phase II, New Delhi-110091) The defendant should facilitate the plaintiff to inspect and conduct repairs in the flat of the defendant, if required and suggested by the plumber/contractor, for fixing the problem of seepage, so that the necessary repairs can be completed in the minimum time possible. The plaintiff however will mandatorily give a prior notice in writing to the defendant before any inspection is to be done in the flat of the defendant. The plaintiff is also directed to take in writing from the contractor/plumber all work suggested and undertaken towards correcting the seepage. Any cost incurred towards repair above Rs.70,000/- shall be borne by the plaintiff himself.

3. The defendant is to also pay damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff towards the mental harassment, agony and loss suffered by him."

5. The Defendant appealed against the said judgment, which was upheld vide the judgment dated 5th February, 2019, with slight modification of the mandatory injunction, in the following terms:

"17. Conclusion

In view of findings of this court on the aforesaid points of determination, the judgment and decree of Ld. Trial Court dated 28.02.2017 is upheld, with slight modification that instead of plaintiff carrying out repairs in the flat of defendant which may result in future litigation between the parties, a decree of mandatory injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant thereby directing the defendant to carry out the necessary repair works and waterproofing in his property so that seepage may be avoided in the premises of the plaintiff. The appeal is decided accordingly and suit of plaintiff/respondent is decreed in his favour. Cost is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. D