Borivali Consumer Court Dismisses Complaint Over Society Drainage Leakage
On June 27, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, dismissed a consumer complaint filed by a Borivali resident against his housing society's secretary over an alleged unauthorized drainage connection and water leakage. The dispute involved Shree Sagar Darshan Building No. 1 Cooperative Housing Society in Borivali, Mumbai, where the complainant alleged that inaction by the society's secretary led to property damage in his flat.
The complainant, Mahesh Vasu, had filed the case against the secretary of the cooperative housing society, Vinod Punamiya. Vasu claimed that the occupant of the flat directly above his had converted a bedroom into a kitchen. According to the complaint, this resident installed an unauthorized external drainage outlet and water inlet, which resulted in severe water leakage.
Vasu alleged that the leakage damaged approximately 36 square feet of his bathroom ceiling, causing plaster and concrete to fall. In his complaint, he sought directions to disconnect the alleged unauthorized pipeline, as well as compensation for property damage, mental agony, and litigation costs.
Despite being served with a notice, the opposite party, Vinod Punamiya, did not appear before the commission or file a written statement. As a result, the matter proceeded ex parte.
During the hearings, the commission established that Vasu qualified as a consumer of the cooperative housing society. It reached this conclusion by relying on the society's special general meeting minutes, which referred to Vasu as a member involved in the dispute.
However, the commission ultimately dismissed the complaint due to a lack of evidence. The commission ruled that Vasu failed to prove that the structural alterations made by the upstairs resident were unauthorized, or that they were directly responsible for the water leakage.
While Vasu produced photographs showing the damaged plaster and an external drainage line, the commission observed that he had not submitted any expert report or other cogent evidence. Without such proof, the commission could not establish that the drainage outlet was unauthorized or that the modifications had caused the damage to Vasu's flat. Consequently, the sought-after compensation and relief were denied.
