* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 29th November, 2011
+ RFA(OS) 88/2011
ORIENTAL COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Sameer Nandwani, Advocate.
versus
DINA NATH ARORA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.V.V.Manoharan, Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
None for the other respondents.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Two pay orders in the names of respondent Nos.1 and 2 each in the sum of `25,000/- have been handed over by learned counsel for the appellant to the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. We note that on the last date of hearing `7,00,000/- had been paid to respondent Nos.1 and 2. Thus, out of the decretal sum i.e. `15,00,000/-, a sum of `7,50,000/- stands paid to respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Deena Nath Arora and his wife Usha Arora are unfortunate parents of late Kapil, their only son, who died an untimely death on July 24, 2005. Aged 20 years and studying as a student in the third year at Delhi college of RFA(OS) No.88/2011 Page 1 of 5 Engineering he went to meet his friend who resided in a flat in the complex developed by the appellant, which is a Co-operative Group Housing Society. At around 8:30 p.m. as he left the flat where his friend resided and while still within the precincts' of the society, while he was passing by the footpath immediately beneath the parapet of flat No.B-62, the parapet suddenly collapsed and the entire RCC slab came crashing down akin to a bolder and crushed Kapil who died an instant death being crushed beneath the debris.
4. His parents i.e. Deena Nath (father) and Usha (mother) filed a suit claiming damages in sum of `1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only). The defendants impleaded were: (i) Lt.Governor of Delhi, (ii) Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (iii)Registrar Co- operative Societies, (iv)Oriental Co-operative Group Housing Society i.e. the appellant, (v) M/s Suresh Jain and Associates i.e. the builder which had constructed the flats, (vi) M/s R.K.Associates i.e. the Architect engaged by the society to prepare the drawings for the flats, and (viii)S.C.Sood, the owner of flat No.B-62 i.e.the flat parapet whereof had collapsed.
5. Alleging that the society, the Architect and the Contractor i.e. defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 had constructed the flat using substandard material; alleging further that MCD, the Lt.Governor of Delhi and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies did not properly discharge their supervisory powers over the society and further pleading that the owner of the flat may also be responsible, suit was filed praying that the plaintiffs be paid damages in sum of `1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore).
6. Holding that the appellant society would be responsible RFA(OS) No.88/2011 Page 2 of 5 for the inferior quality construction of the flats and also would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the flats, vide the impugned judgment and decree dated May 30, 2011, the learned Single Judge has decreed the suit filed against the appellant's society in sum of `15,00,000/- together with future interest @ 9% p.a. till date of realization.
7. The only argument advanced during hearing of the appeal today by learned counsel for the appellant is that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge to fasten liability on the appellant is erroneous; and conceding that `15,00,000/- awarded as compensation is fair and reasonable, learned counsel for the appellant urges that the reason given by the learned Single Judge to fasten liability on the appellant society is that its members were paying to it `600/- p.m. towards maintenance charges and thus assuming that the parapet had not been maintained properly and due to vagaries of nature, with the passage of time, had deteriorated to the extent it collapsed, and thus the appellant being responsible for the mishap, ignores that the sum of `600/- p.m. paid by the members was for upkeep of the common areas and not individual flats. Thus, learned counsel urges that the appellant society would not be responsible for the RCC slab to break and come crashing down.
8. It is true that `600/-p.m. paid by members of the appellant society to it are for the general maintenance of the common areas of the society. But, the appellant cannot shirk its responsibility to ensure that its members keep in good and proper repair the parapet of the individual flats. If the parapet was noticeably deteriorated, we see no reason why the appellant did RFA(OS) No.88/2011 Page 3 of 5 not ensure that the member concerned i.e.Shri S.C.Sood repaired the same.
9. This would be the legal answer to the teaser posed by learned counsel for the appellant. But, said question would arise upon proof of the fact that the parapet was noticeably deteriorated.
10. There is no such evidence. Clutching to the straw, learned counsel for the appellant draws our attention to a question put to Sh.K.L.Chawla, who deposed on behalf of the appellant society. During cross-examination when questioned as to the likely cause of the parapets collapsing he replied that one possible reason could be seepage in the roof. This is the personal opinion of Sh.K.L.Chawla and not a statement of fact.
11. What has happened is obvious. Either the structural reinforcement was weak or the cement concrete mixture used had inadequate cement or inadequate stone grit resulting in the concrete mixture not binding properly. It is not in dispute that the construction of the flats was completed somewhere in the year 1988 and the parapet collapsed, as noted herein above, on 24.07.2005 i.e. within about seventeen years of the construction being made. RCC constructions are intended to last for at-least fifty years. It is not a case where a part of the concrete slab broke off. It is not a case where the plaster on the concrete slab fell apart. It is a case where the entire RCC slab constituting the parapet broke off from the main building. We highlight that the iron bars (saria) broke off and as a result the entire parapet came crashing down lock, stock and barrel.
12. The appellant must recompense the first and the second RFA(OS) No.88/2011 Page 4 of 5 respondents i.e. the plaintiffs.
13. We have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal.
14. The appeal is dismissed and since the dismissal is at the preliminary stage itself, we refrain from imposing any cost on either party who shall bear their own costs in the appeal.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (S.P.GARG) JUDGE November 29, 2011 sa RFA(OS) No.88/2011 Page 5 of 5