Cost of bearing internal leakage in flat
Sunil
(Querist) 04 February 2018
This query is : Resolved
There is internal leakage from my flat and water is flowing down to below flat.
It has been alleged by Society that due to below provision in Bye Law, the cost of internal leakage has to be borne by me only. The relevant Bye Law is reproduced as under -
b. All the repairs, not covered by the byelaw No. 158(a) shall be carried out
by the Members at their cost. The expenditure of the internal leakage due to
toilet, sink etc. should be borne by concerned flat holders, with intimation to
the Society.
In my view the above clause suggest that cost should be borne by "Concerned Flat holders". This means it should be shared between the flat from where leakage is occurring and flat who are impacted by leakage. Since the words used viz., Member(s), Flat holders(s) suggest more than one.
Is my interpretation correct.
Is cost has to be borne by me only or has to be shared as per above interpretation.
Regards.
Guest
(Expert) 05 February 2018
Very good interpretation like penny wise for today and pound foolish for future when the whole of the two flats would get destroyed by seepage from your flat, as until the dispute on your interpretation is mutually settled between you and by the lower flat owner or get decided by the court of law, you do not seem to be ready for preventive repairs, rather would prefer to get the roof/ walls that fully soaked and deteriorated by the passage of time.
BY THE WAY, WHAT IS THE OPINION OF THE OTHER FLAT OWNER OR THE SOCIETY MANAGEMENT, AS YOU HAVE NOT STATED ANYTHING ABOUT DISPUTE, IF THERE IS ANY. YOU HAVE SIMPLY ASKED AN ACADEMIC QUERY, NOT THE REAL PROBLEM WITH REFERENCE TO THE FLAT OWNER'S DISPUTE WITH YOU.
Hemant Agarwal
(Expert) 05 February 2018
1. Under the provision of the MODEL Bye-Laws, BOTH the affected parties (irrespective of the reasons for leakage), have to bear the mutual cost of rectifying the leakage, failure of which it becomes an offence prosecutable under the MMC Act.
This fellow nick named "JIGYASU" claims himself as a "Legal Analyst" BUT never provides any answers to any queriest and only keeps on twisting his perverted words.
BEWARE OF HIS FRUSTRATION & NEFARIOUS HABIT.
Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
Guest
(Expert) 05 February 2018
@ Mr. Hemant Agarwal,
You advise others to keep smiling, but your response is deprived of any smile on your part, as that smacks of hatred, when referred "Mr. Jigyasu", without any specific reference or falseness of my advice. In fact that gives very clear impression as if you are quite afraid of Mr. Jigyasu, as used to openly falsify your advice to the querists.
Better bear in mind, if someone is able to pinpoint falseness of your advice, he is more learned than you. Now from the second sentence of your post, anyone can easily judge IRRITATION FRUSTRATION ONLY ON YOUR PART due to your allergic reaction to my post.
I believe in practical advice, not theoretical one, like yours bookish advice. Now even if your advice is taken care of by the querist, suppose the owner of the lower floor does not agree on your advice and the society is also not able to solve the tangle the issue would definitely go to the Registrar's court or the court of law. In that condition would the condition of both the flats improve or deteriorate till the decision of the competent court?
My post was pointer to that aspect only and was suggestive of amicable settlement, rather than giving theoretical bookish advice, like yours.
Now try to smile, if you can, by remembering me with all your hatred.
