O R D E R



Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

1. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 20/3/2007 passed in consumer complaint no.389/2006 Shri Sharad S.Pente v/s. President (Shri C.H.Dutta), Heera Panna Apartments Association and others passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Thane (‘Forum below’ in short).

2. Appellant/complainant who is one of the apartment holders in Heera Panna apartments filed a consumer complaint showing his displeasure about execution of repair works which was entrusted to respondent O.P.no.5 Shri Mane and further alleging that due to bad repair work or improper repair work or delay in causing the repairs, there is deficiency in service and claimed the following reliefs:-

“1. To stop the payment by association to any contractor for building work, until recovery of loss and damages to our flat

2. Recovery of total loss and damages to flat and furniture OR compensation of equal amount as per details enclosed - Rs.1,09,900/-

3. Compensation for physical and mental suffering since May 22, 2006 Rs.1,25,000/-.

4. Cost of this complaint.

5. Interest on total amount to be paid @ 20% per annum from the date of this complaint.

6. Orders be passed as the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may deem fit in the circumstances of the case that the accused should be punished severally so that culprits of similar kind would be afraid to indulge in such criminal activities”.

3. Forum below partly allowing the complaint granted following reliefs as per the final order of the impugned award.

“1. Complaint no.389/2006 is partly allowed.

2. All Opponents are held jointly and severally liable to comply with this order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

3. Opponents (jointly and severally) are directed to complete the water proofing and all other pending work done under the observation of qualified Architect/Engineer, approved by complainant and submit the report of completion of said Architect/Engineer on affidavit before us.

4. Opponents are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of this complaint to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

Not satisfied with the reliefs granted in his favour, complainant preferred this appeal.

4. Heard Appellant in person, Mr.Hiraman Patil-respondent no.2 for himself and

other respondents and Mr.Vivek Mulay-Respondent no.6 in person. (Respondent no.5 Mr.Mane, reported dead).

5. As per the written submissions filed on behalf of respondents/original O.P.nos. 1 to 4 and 6, it is submitted on their behalf that water proofing work was completed. The monetary part of the award was complied with after giving adjustment of the amount from the amount of maintenance arrears due from the complainant. They have given the statement of maintenance and other arrears. It is also pointed out by them that O.P.no.5 Shri Mane to whom the work was entrusted of repairs/water proofing is no more alive. These facts remain undisputed by the appellant/complainant.

6. Appellant has a grievance that though he has suffered a lot due to untimely taking the repairing work of terrace for water proofing and not completing the same properly, he had to suffer a lot. However, Forum below in the impugned order observed that complainant has failed to give actual proof and account of damages suffered by him. There is hardly any evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant in proof of the allegations made by him. There is no claim affidavit filed by him as per provisions of section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The affidavit filed by him appears to be a just cryptic verification of the complaint and nothing more.

7. Since there is no appeal preferred by any one of the O.Ps against whom the impugned order was passed, we refrain ourselves from making comments about the legality and propriety of the impugned order. There being no case made out by the appellant for the enhancement of the compensation awarded, we find the appeal devoid of any substance on that count. Further, final order of the impugned award clearly spells out the liability as joint and several of the O.Ps. There is no ambiguity in it. Therefore, grievance made as per appeal memo by the appellant on this count has no merit.

For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass following order:-

ORDER

1. Appeal stands dismissed.

2. However in the given circumstances no order as to costs.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S.P.Lale) (S.R.Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member