[ad_1]
MUMBAI: In a big order, the state shopper fee has held 4 housing society workplace bearers responsible of deficiency in service, along with the housing society itself, and directed them to individually pay a compensation of Rs 50,000, for failing to supply reduction to a flat member whose repeated pleas to repair a leakage downside induced on account of rainwater fell on deaf ears.
“This fee can also be of the opinion that the workplace bearers of the cooperative housing society throughout whose tenure, regardless of receiving complaints in writing from the member, no correct steps had been taken to redress the complaints of member. Therefore, along with the cooperative housing society, the workplace bearers are additionally chargeable for not taking a call and giving reduction to the member by proving poor service,” said the Maharashtra State Client Disputes Redressal Fee.
The housing society, Swati Srishti CHS Ltd, too, has been ordered to pay a compensation of Rs 2.25 lakh for inflicting psychological agony together with round Rs 91,000 (with curiosity) in the direction of the repairs.
The flat proprietor, Nanda Kumar Shetty, moved the state fee after a district discussion board rejected his plea in 2019. He had moved the district discussion board in 2013. Shetty was represented by advocates Anubha Rastogi and Kushal Mor.
Whereas opposing the attraction, the lawyer for the housing society and workplace bearers submitted that he had already approached the deputy registrar of cooperative housing societies and that this was thought of by the district discussion board.
The buyer fee, although, stated it has the jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of members of a cooperative housing society. “Therefore, the remark made by the district fee that ‘the complainant has already approached one authority having jurisdiction and stated authority has taken cognizance and shopper fee has no jurisdiction’ shouldn’t be appropriate and authorized,” the state fee stated.
The fee additionally stated as per the society bylaws underneath Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, cooperative societies have the duty to hold out the repairs and upkeep of societies’ property.
“…As per the jurisdiction of the patron fee, the complaints in relation with deficiency in service by the service supplier, right here co-operative housing society, is maintainable earlier than the patron fee,” the fee stated.
Shetty informed the fee that in February 2009, he complained to the housing society in regards to the leakage. No motion was taken. Shetty additional alleged that in August, 2010 the ceiling of his toilet crashed on account of heavy leakage.
The housing society and the workplace bearers denied the allegations. Their lawyer submitted the society has by no means denied restore work. “In actual fact, in society conferences, the leakage downside confronted by the members was significantly mentioned,” their lawyer submitted earlier than the fee.
“This fee can also be of the opinion that the workplace bearers of the cooperative housing society throughout whose tenure, regardless of receiving complaints in writing from the member, no correct steps had been taken to redress the complaints of member. Therefore, along with the cooperative housing society, the workplace bearers are additionally chargeable for not taking a call and giving reduction to the member by proving poor service,” said the Maharashtra State Client Disputes Redressal Fee.
The housing society, Swati Srishti CHS Ltd, too, has been ordered to pay a compensation of Rs 2.25 lakh for inflicting psychological agony together with round Rs 91,000 (with curiosity) in the direction of the repairs.
The flat proprietor, Nanda Kumar Shetty, moved the state fee after a district discussion board rejected his plea in 2019. He had moved the district discussion board in 2013. Shetty was represented by advocates Anubha Rastogi and Kushal Mor.
Whereas opposing the attraction, the lawyer for the housing society and workplace bearers submitted that he had already approached the deputy registrar of cooperative housing societies and that this was thought of by the district discussion board.
The buyer fee, although, stated it has the jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of members of a cooperative housing society. “Therefore, the remark made by the district fee that ‘the complainant has already approached one authority having jurisdiction and stated authority has taken cognizance and shopper fee has no jurisdiction’ shouldn’t be appropriate and authorized,” the state fee stated.
The fee additionally stated as per the society bylaws underneath Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, cooperative societies have the duty to hold out the repairs and upkeep of societies’ property.
“…As per the jurisdiction of the patron fee, the complaints in relation with deficiency in service by the service supplier, right here co-operative housing society, is maintainable earlier than the patron fee,” the fee stated.
Shetty informed the fee that in February 2009, he complained to the housing society in regards to the leakage. No motion was taken. Shetty additional alleged that in August, 2010 the ceiling of his toilet crashed on account of heavy leakage.
The housing society and the workplace bearers denied the allegations. Their lawyer submitted the society has by no means denied restore work. “In actual fact, in society conferences, the leakage downside confronted by the members was significantly mentioned,” their lawyer submitted earlier than the fee.
[ad_2]