Leakage in Co operative Housing Societies.

It is common knowledge that many disputes in Co operative Housing Societies originate on account of Leakage. Prima facie leakages are of two types internal leakage and external leakage.

We all know that water percolates from top to bottom. It reduces the life span of the building. The neighbour from whose flat leakage originates is  hardly bothered as leakage does not affect him.

The poor member residing on the lower floor pleads, appeals, screams but hardly does it affect the member residing above his flat.

His submission that his furniture is getting spoilt.  False ceiling is likely to fall, the paint is peeling, walls have become wet, There is a probability of electrical shocks due to water percolating into wall are just ignored by the member residing above.  The submissions being made by the society in such matters almost falls on deaf ears.

Forget about repairing the flat and stopping the leakage, Member residing on the above floor literally does not allow the society representatives or the representative of the members residing below to even allow the contractor to enter his flat.

Some societies have passed resolution that the expense on leakage of flat specifically internal leakage will be shared equally by all the three parties namely, one share by the member from whose flat leakage is originating,  one share by the member residing below that is the sufferer ( dukhi atma ) and one share by the society. Idea of sharing by the society is to ensure an element of support to the sufferer besides an element of fear on the member who is resisting carrying out leakage.

As regards external leakage or leakage from the terrace the same is the exclusive responsibility of the society.

Here,  I would like to add that the members are short-sighted at times due to vested interest they oppose sharing of expenses. Let’s take an example

We know that leakage will result in contribution of expenses by the members residing on the lower floors. Say the society collects Rs. 1,000/- per member per month for  repair and maintenance. The members on the top floor also pays Rs. 1,000 for repairs. Terrace repair contribution for  resolving the leakage problem would be say Rs. 5,00,000/-. Why should  the hefty expenses be incurred by all when more benefit is likely to accrue on a selected few? This is the logic of members residing on lower floors.

The aggrieved member much against his desire has to approach lawyer for such matters. Obviously his  lawyer will think in terms of the welfare of his clients and will take the fight to a different level. He will advise his client to approach Bombay Municipal Corporation and write to the Bombay Municipal Corporation  to issue notice to the society as well as a member residing above his flat. He may also advise his client to draw the attention of the Bombay Municipal Corporation to the irregularities and illegalities in the cooperative society. We have been given to understand that the Bombay Municipal Corporation itself is not following laws framed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation then how are Cooperative Societies supposed to follow the said laws100%? Nitch area, drying space area are merged and misused by many members of a cooperative  society which is an open secret.

Terrace repairs is the responsibility of the society.  But in reality members residing on top floors have to contribute extra is the unwritten rule for repairs of terrace. Alternatively  suffer in iisolation. Members in general body meeting will say just put tar by spending a few thousand rupees rather than repair the terrace.

In one matter of internal leakage Bombay High Court has also advise all the parties to resolve the issue amicably. That too after telling the cooperative society that the court would be forced to appoint an administrator to sort out the issue of leakage.

We are herewith annexing  a few newspaper articles and judgements on leakage related matters.

Compiled and Shared by

Sampat’s Law Firm

Advocate Vinod Sampat



Advocate Heena Vinod Sampat Advocate Dharmin Vinod Sampat Advocate Mithil Vinod Sampat

Mob. 9987622225/7021919950

Email vinod@vinodsampat.com


Newspaper Article regarding Leakage in Flat (1)




Leakage in Co operative Housing Societies (1)





Flat buyer can claim refund if he doesn’t get possession in time

Subsequently, a Letter of Intent (LoI) was issued on May 22, 2012, promising possession within 36 months. Sharma paid Rs 58,65,000 more as demanded.

The Authority failed to deliver possession within the promised period. So Sharma sent a letter on July 1, 2016 seeking a refund of the entire amount paid by him, but his request was ignored.

Instead, a letter backdated June 30, 2016, was sent on July 4, 2016, offering possession of the apartment, but Sharma did not take possession. After a few months, the Authority sent a letter agreeing to refund the money without interest, subject to a deduction of

10% of the total price paid.

Sharma then filed a complaint before the Punjab State Commission, which was contested by the Authority.

The Commission overruled the objection raised by the Authority that the dispute should be referred to arbitration or a civil court, and held the consumer fora were competent to adjudicate the dispute. It concluded a consumer who is not given possession in time has a right to seek a refund. Accordingly, it directed the Authority to refund the entire amount along with 8% compound interest. In addition, Rs 50,000 was awarded as compensation and Rs 21,000 as litigation costs.

The Authority appealed against this order. The National Commission scrutinized the postal receipts and the envelopes and found the letter sent by the Authority had been despatched on July 4, 2016, but had been backdated to June 30, 2016, to make it appear it was sent a day prior to Sharma’s letter dated July 1, 2016.

Accordingly, by its order of January 2, 2019, delivered by the bench of Justice R K Agrawal and Justice M Shreesha, the National Commission dismissed the Authority’s appeal.

Conclusion: A flat purchaser can seek a refund along with interest and compensation if possession is delayed. Such a demand could be made at any time prior to the issuance of letter offering possession.

(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt.of India’s National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His email is jehangir.gai.columnist@outlook.in )

Jehangir B Gai

ePaper, The Times of India, Bombay, Monday, January 07, 2019, Page 4:

No TDS on interest income up to Rs 50,000 in case of senior citizens

No TDS on interest income up to Rs 50,000 in case of senior citizens, clarifies CBDT

CBDT has clarified that in the case of senior citizens, no TDS is required to be deducted u/s 194A, where the amount of such income doesn’t exceed Rs 50,000 in aggregate.

income tax, TDS on interest income, CBDT, interest income, senior citizens, 50000, bank deposits

It may be noted that earlier a deduction of Rs 10,000 in respect of interest income was provided to all taxpayers.

Are you a senior citizen and your bank is still deducting TDS on your interest income which is less than Rs 50,000 in a financial year? Here’s good news for you. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has clarified that in the case of senior citizens, no TDS (tax deducted at source) is required to be ‘deducted at source’ u/s 194A of the Income Tax Act, where the amount of such income during a financial year doesn’t exceed Rs 50,000 in aggregate.

In a circular, CBDT has said that it has been brought to its notice that in case of senior citizens, some TDS deductors and banks are deducting TDS despite the amount of income not exceeding Rs 50,000 in a financial year. “The same is not in accordance with the law as the Income-Tax Act provides that no tax deduction at source under section 194A shall be made in the case of Senior Citizens where the amount of such income or, the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid during the financial year does not exceed Rs 50,000,” it said.

The Tax Department further said that under sub-rule (5) of Rule 31A of the I-T Rules, 1962, the Director General of Income-tax (Systems) is authorized to specify the procedures, formats and standards for the purposes of furnishing and verification of the statements or claim for refund in Form 26B and shall be responsible for the day-to-day administration in relation to furnishing and verification of the statements or claim for refund in Form 26B in the manner so specified.

“In exercise of the powers delegated by the CBDT(Board) under sub-rule (5) of Rule 31A of the I-T Rules, 1962, the Principal Director General of Income-tax (Systems) hereby clarifies that no tax deduction at source under section 194A shall be made in the case of Senior Citizens where the amount of such income or, the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid during the financial year does not exceed Rs 50,000.”

It may be noted that earlier a deduction of Rs 10,000 in respect of interest income was provided to all taxpayers. However, to provide a dignified life to senior citizens, significant incentives were given to them in the Budget 2018-19 by FM Arun Jaitley. One such incentive was given in the form of exemption of interest income on deposits with banks and post offices up to Rs 50,000 without TDS under Section 194A. For this purpose, a new Section 80TTB was inserted in the I-T Act to provide deduction for interest income up to Rs 50,000. This benefit is also available on interest income from all FDs and recurring deposit schemes.


Your Maggi Is Toxic

Your Maggi Is Toxic, Nestle Admits In Court; Supreme Court Allows Case Against Maggi

If you love to eat Maggi, then there is some bad news for you. Nestle, the company which manufacturers Maggi, has admitted that toxic ingredients are in it.

What does this mean? And what will happen to Maggi now?

Keep reading to find out more..

Nestle: Yes, Maggi Has Toxic Elements

After Supreme Court allowed the case against Nestle to reopen, and reinstate, Nestle’s lawyers have admitted that toxic elements such as lead and MSG are found in Maggi’s sample tests.

These tests were conducted by CFTRI (Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysuru).

Which Toxic Elements Were Found In Maggi?

The controversial toxic element in question here is Monosodium glutamate (MSG), which was found in the tests conducted by the Mysore based lab.

Now, although Maggi has admitted that MSG is found in their product, they have contested the findings of the lab stating that it is not clear whether MSG is naturally occurring or it has been added artificially into Maggi.

Besides, Maggi has also argued that the MSG content in Maggi is under ‘permissable’ limits. On this, the bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud asked Nestle why they should consume Maggi, if Nestle itself is admitting that MSG is found in it?

The Bench has made it clear that the final verdict over the fate of Maggi will solely depend on the lab test results from CFTRI (Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysuru).

The case proceedings are currently underway, and we will keep you updated, as more details come in.

Maggi Was Banned Due To MSG

In June 2015, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had banned the sale of Maggi all over India, over MSG content found in sample tests.

Over this, Consumers Affairs Ministry had filed a complaint at the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) under Section 12 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Damages worth Rs 640 crore was sought from Maggi, over the issue.

Additional cases were filed on the behalf of consumers over unfair trade practices, and for selling ‘Maggi Oats Noodles’ without prior approval.

However, after Nestle challenged the ban over inconsistent lab results, the b an was lifted in November, 2015 .

But now, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has filed a fresh case against Nestle in the Supreme Court, and the admittance by lawyers regarding MSG has happened during this recent hearing.

Now, in case the Bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud is convinced that Maggi was aware of the MSG content, and despite this, they allowed the sale to happen, then Maggi can be again banned in India.


Can a Bank be held deficient in services if its ATM does not dispense Cash for the reason “Cash not available”?

A consumer Court in Raipur has recently imposed a penalty of Rs.2500/- on SBI for exactly the same reason overruling 🎯the arguments of SBI that
1) the complainant was not its customer and
2) failure of internet connectivity is not within its ambit, rather it is upon the internet service provider against whom, any complaint if any, should lie.

The Forum countered SBI by saying that when Banks are charging for usage of ATMs for a whole year in advance and a client is Free to use any ATM he automatically becomes a customer.

The second point was countered with the reasoning that when the ATM itself was showing “No Cash Available” on 3 different dates and times how it can be a case of internet failure? Moreover, when customers are penalised for no balance or less than minimum balance in their accounts, how can a Bank get away with no cash in the ATM?

It being the first such judgement for ATM failure, it is expected to generate a lot of interest in the matter.

The incident happened in May 2017, complaint filed in June 2017 and the verdict was passed recently.
It’s a reminder to our banker friends here to be more careful in loading Cash in ATMs especially before consecutive holidays to escape such penalty as well as customer dissatisfaction.
As received.

Courtesy N Sankarapandian Natarajan in SBI Pensioners group💐🙏