Housing society at fault if flats not maintained,rules HC

The court held this,as it ordered Rohini-based Oriental Co-operative Group Housing society to shell out Rs 15 lakh,along with a nine per cent interest,to the parents of a 20-year-old man who died after a part of a balcony fell on him.

Kapil,a third-year student with the Delhi College of Engineering,was crushed under the debris after a concrete slab along the edge of the balcony that collapsed on July 24,2005,while he was returning home.

Kapil’s father Dina Nath Arora and mother Usha subsequently filed a case and named the society,the lieutenant governor,the MCD and the registrar of co-operative societies,as parties. Their petition further arrayed the construction company,the architect and also the owner of the flat as parties to the case.

Claiming Rs 1 crore in damages,the petition alleged that all the authorities had failed in carrying out their duties of supervision,which resulted in the tragedy. Also blaming sub-standard materials used in constructing the flats,the petition said Kapil was an engineering student and his salary,along with future prospects,must be considered while computing the damages.

Seeking to wriggle out of the liability,the society argued that it could not be made responsible for the fault of an individual flat owner. It contended that the members paid a monthly maintenance fee of Rs 600,which was utilised for upkeep of only the common areas.

A single-judge bench,however,held the society liable for the incident and asked it to pay Rs 15 lakh in compensation. Aggrieved,the society challenged this order before a division bench,claiming it was erroneous to fasten a liability on the society only because it charged a maintenance fee from its members.

The bench,headed by Justice Pradeep Nandarajog,upheld that the society would be responsible for the inferior quality construction of the flats and also for the maintenance and upkeep of the flats.

Dismissing the society’s appeal,the court said it was “obvious” that either the structural reinforcement was weak or material mixture used in construction was sub-standard. Had it not been the case,the structure,which was intended to last for at least 50 years,would not have collapsed within 17 years of its construction,the court observed.