ORDER

ORDER

Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Complainant, acting through his father, is to order dated 18.03.2014, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in FA Nos.

669 and 682/2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has overturned the order, dated 23.04.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum SAS Nagar (Mohali) (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No.325 of 2011, inter-alia directing the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner, jointly or severally a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards the loss suffered by him on account of damage to his Ground Floor Flat because of leakage and blockage etc. Respondent No. 1 is the Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (for short “GMADA”).

Respondent No. 2 happens to be the owner/occupant of the Upper Floor(First Floor).

Both of them were Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 respectively in the complaint.

2. Briefly stated, the material facts, giving rise to the Revision Petition, are that on

01.09.1998 the Petitioner was allotted, by Respondent No. 1, Flat No. 2750-GF-

MIG(Super) in Sector 70, District SAS Nagar, Mohali on hire-purchase basis. Similarly, Flat No. 2750-A (FF) was allotted to Respondent No. 2. It seems that there was choking/blocking in the bathrooms and kitchens of the Upper Floor flats resulting in seepage and consequent damage to the Petitioner’s flat on the ground floor. Vide letter dated 09.01.2009, Petitioner requested Respondent No. 1 to get the requisite repairs done from Respondent No. 2. It appears that having failed to get any positive response to his complaints from the said Respondent as also the Punjab State Human rights Commission, Chandigarh, he filed a complaint with the District Forum, praying for a direction to the Respondents to get the needful done and also pay as compensation a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss and building material; Rs. 30,000/- for mental tension etc.

3. The complaint was contested by the Respondents. Respondents No.2 raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the complaint on the grounds that: (i)

there was no cause of action to file the complaint; (ii) the Petitioner was not a “consumer” under the Act and (iii) the complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation.

On merits it was alleged that the Petitioner had himself made certain unauthorized changes in the flat and a show cause notice was issued to him on the complaints of his neighbours. In the written version filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, it was pleaded that there was no “consumer” relationship between him and the Petitioner and as a matter of fact the leakage problem emanated from flat on the second floor, which was rectified on the direction of Respondent No. 1.

4. The District Forum accepted the version of the Petitioner and observed that the problem of blockage/chocking of the bathroom and kitchen flow started in the year

2009, it took one and half years for the Respondents to plug the leakage and save the property of the Petitioner from further damage, which amounted to deficiency in service on their part. The District Forum finally concluded that as per Clause Viii of the hire-

purchase agreement a duty was cast upon Respondent No. 1 to maintain the building, which it failed to do and, therefore, both the Respondents were jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service. Accordingly, as noted above, the Respondents were directed to pay to the Petitioner sums of Rs.35,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 5000/- towards loss, compensation and litigation expenses respectively.

5. Being aggrieved, Respondent No. 2, preferred Appeal to the State Commission.

The order was challenged by GMADA as well, by way of a separate appeal No.

682/2013. Both the Appeals have been allowed by the State Commission observing thus:-

“27. The District Forum has relied upon the Hire Purch