MUMBAI, JULY 13: A mobile phone receiving unit set up by Max Touch atop a building in Ghatkopar (east) has reportedly caused cracks in a flat on the sixth floor below. Sunil Sanghrajka, resident of Pallavi building who has been living with a cracked ceiling and walls since November 1997, has moved the high court demanding that the centre be removed. The case will come up for hearing on July 29.Sanghrajka filed a petition on December 17, 1998, stating that cracks have developed in the walls, beams and pillars of his flat, which pose a threat to life, limb and property. The problem started in November 1997, two years after the centre was set up. As soon as Sanghrajka noticed the cracks in the walls, he wrote to Max Touch but got no response, he stated.The situation deteriorated by August 1998 as the cracks started spreading to the beams and pillars. Sanghrajka wrote to the company on August 14 and again on September 7, but when he received still no response, he wrote to the ward office, and an assistantengineer visited his flat, he said.``After the civic officials' visit, the company officials visited the flat and agreed to repair the damage. But they just wanted to cement the cracks and whitewash the entire room, which I did not allow,'' added Sanghrajka.The company claimed that it was only repairing the damage done to Sanghjarka's flat out of `goodwill'. Senior Executive (legal) for Hutchison Max Telecom Ltd Sujeet Jain in a letter to Sanghrajka's advocate stated that the company has obtained a certificate from a consulting engineer N K Lakhani which says: ``There is a hair crack separating masonary and RCC beam due to changes in temperature and moisture. There is no deflection of beams and cracks in walls. The terrace needs waterproofing as cementing materials from broken chips is extruded and permits penetration of rain water causing dampness in ceiling. The other outside cracks should be sealed in mastic.'' Lakhani certified that the building is structurally sound.Interestingly, the assistantengineer of buildings and factories in the N ward had written to the manager of Max Touch in September 1998 requesting the company to shift the unit to another suitable site or show the site to a structural engineer and submit a structural stability certificate. Just a month later, in October, the company submitted the certificate from Lakhani to the corporation.Another structural engineer registered with the BMC, D S Harpalani, who was appointed by Sanghrajka, stated that the mobile unit is responsible for the damage. ``The rain water gets stagnant in the area under the shelter cabin and it is noted that due to construction of pillars, the original path of flow was obstructed and therefore water was not draining towards the rain water outlet. Due to the stagnant water, the RCC slab is bound to deteriorate and its effect on falling of plaster.''Harpalani recommended that the shelter cabin be shifted from its present location to any other suitable location and it be supported on the original four RCCcolumns of the building to prevent further damage and deterioration of the flat.Max Touch has submitted in its affidavit before the court that Sanghrajka had filed the case with malafide intentions to compel the company to pay him compensation.
