BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.SC/27/A/22/365 (Arisen out of order dated 12/07/2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No. CC/16/318 by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Central Mumbai)

1. Mr. Litesh Navnitrai Bhuta

2. Mrs. Parul Litesh Bhuta, Both R/at – Flat no. 58, Matunga Kapole Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 590, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Matunga (C.R.)

Mumbai - 400019. ........Appellants/

(Original Complainants)

V/s.

Matunga Kapole Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Having Office at – 590, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Matunga ©, Mumbai – 400019.

Through its Chairman ........Respondent/

(Original Opposite Party)

BEFORE:

Justice S.P. Tavade, President Vijay C. Premchandani, Judicial Member For Appellants : Adv. Bhagyashree Dhamapurkar For Respondent : Adv. Rohan Pawaskar

FINAL ORDER

(Dt. 22^st January, 2026)

Per Hon’ble Justice S.P.Tavade – President

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed in Consumer Complaint no. CC/16/318 by the Ld. District Consumer Commission Central Mumbai on 17/03/2022 the Original Complainant has preferred this Appeal. The parties to this appeal shall be herein after called and referred to as per their status in the original consumer complaint. The facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarised as under :

2. The Complainants are having flat no. 58 in the Respondent Society. The flat of the Complainants situated at 3^rd floor, and their roof is terrace. The Opposite Party is Society wherein there are 44 members. The Complainant no. 1 was Chairman of Opposite Party Society from 2009 till September 2015. On 14/01/2013 Annual General Meeting of Opposite Party was held wherein the meeting has approved expenses for water proofing of terrace. It was alleged that, there was huge leakage in the flat of the Complainants and Complainants had requested the Opposite Party to carry out repairs to block the leakages. In the said meeting an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was sanctioned for water proofing of the terrace. But the said work was not carried out during the tenure of the Complainant. It was contended that the member Kirti Bhuta had given three letters to managing committee to carry out repairs but, the repairs were not carried out.

3. It was contended that, in spite of repeated letters of Complainants the Opposite Party neither gave any reply nor took any steps or inspected the Complainants’ premises. Thus, the Complainants assumed / deemed permission to carry out repairs and accordingly Mr. Jayesh Gandhi was appointed to carry out water proofing of the terrace. The Complainants paid Rs. 91,955/- to Mr Jayesh Gandhi. It was contended that as per the minutes of the General Body Meeting held on 14/11/2013 and 25/05/2013 the Opposite Party was required to carry out repairs. But the Society failed to carry out the repairs therefore, committed deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice. The Opposite Party refused to pay repair charges of Rs. 91,955/-.

4. It was contended that the Society had collected huge amount towards maintenance and repairs funds till filing of the complaint, but the Society did not carry out effective and comprehensive repairs of the building. It was contended that Special General Meeting of the Opposite Party Society was held on 21/05/2016 wherein, letters of Complainants and others were discussed. However, in the said meeting the Opposite Party refused to reimburse to the members the expenses incurred by them for repairs. It was contended that as per Bye law no. 159 (a) (ix) it is the duty of the Society to carry out repairs of the terrace and parapet walls of the building of the Society. But the Society failed to carry out repairs and also refused to reimburse the amount spent by the Complainants for the repairs. Hence, the Complainants has issued notice to Opposite Party and thereafter filed the complaint. Notice was issued to Opposite Party.

5. The Opposite Party appeared and filed its written statement. It i