In a judgment delivered on July 4, 2026, Dr. Srishty Neelkanth, Member-1 of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, overturned an earlier order of the Co-operative Court, holding that the society had failed to adequately address the member’s repeated complaints despite acknowledging the problem.

How the dispute began

The dispute traces its roots to 2006 when Vishal Co-operative Housing Society undertook major structural repairs to its H-Wing, a building that was over three decades old.

The repairs included structural strengthening, terrace waterproofing, civil repairs, plumbing, painting, replacement of pipelines, repairs to lifts, electrical work, water tanks, rainwater harvesting and other infrastructure improvements.

The society collected contributions from all 28 flat owners towards the project. The appellant, Mr. Indravadan Chimanlal Shah, who owns Flats No. 603 and 604 on the top floor directly beneath the terrace, contributed over ₹1.52 lakh towards the repair work.

According to the judgment, the repair contract executed on December 2, 2006, carried a 10-year guarantee for the works, including terrace waterproofing.

Leakage complaints started after repairs

Mr. Shah alleged that while carrying out repairs on the RCC slab, the existing waterproofing layers were damaged, resulting in heavy leakage into both his flats situated directly below the terrace.

He claimed the leakage caused extensive damage to:

• False ceiling
• Electrical fittings
• Fans
• Tube lights
• Spotlights
• Paint
• Furniture and fixtures
• Ceiling structure

He maintained that poor quality waterproofing work weakened the ceiling and led to continuous cracks and seepage.

Society repeatedly informed

The appellate court noted that Mr. Shah continuously approached the society seeking corrective action.

The judgment records that he sent written complaints to the society on:

• June 27, 2009
• September 5, 2009
• October 15, 2009
• November 13, 2009
• December 2, 2009

When the society failed to act, he also approached the Assistant Engineer, Building and Factory Department of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation on January 31, 2011.

Society acknowledged leakage—but shifted responsibility

One of the crucial pieces of evidence relied upon by the appellate court was the society’s own letter dated March 2, 2011.

The court observed that the letter clearly acknowledged that Mr. Shah had repeatedly complained about ongoing water leakage.

However, instead of carrying out repairs itself, the society advised him to:

• appoint a licensed waterproofing contractor,
• obtain the required BMC permissions,
• execute an agreement with the contractor,
• and bear the cost initially, with the society agreeing to reimburse only 50% of the expenses.

Mr. Shah rejected the proposal.

He informed the society that the terrace was common property belonging to the society and that the damage had occurred because of defective workmanship during the society’s own repair project, which was covered by a 10-year guarantee.

He also demanded copies of the structural stability certificate and BMC permissions and warned that the society would be responsible for any accident arising from continued leakage.

Society defended repair work

Before the Co-operative Court, the society argued that:

• the terrace waterproofing had been completed successfully in May 2007,
• pond tests had confirmed there was no leakage,
• a structural stability certificate had been issued in May 2008,
• the repairs were carried out under qualified engineers.

The society further alleged that Mr. Shah himself had:

• merged two flats without permission,
• installed a permanent false ceiling,
• prevented engineers from inspecting the RCC slab,
• failed to cooperate during inspection.

According to the society, these actions prevented it from carrying out internal repairs.

Trial Court dismissed the dispute

The Co-operative Court dismissed Mr. Shah’s dispute in August 2023.

The Trial Court accepted the society’s contentions that the member had failed to establish negligence and had not proved that the society was responsible for the damage.

It also held that he had failed to establish the amount of compensation claimed.

Appellate Court found serious errors

The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court disagreed with the Trial Court’s approach.

One of the most significant findings was that although the society had filed a written statement, it failed to prove any of its allegations.

The appellate court noted that:

• none of the respondents entered the witness box,
• no documentary evidence was produced,
• the society did not cross-examine Mr. Shah,
• and ultimately even its arguments were closed before the Trial Court.

As a result, Mr. Shah’s affidavit remained completely unchallenged.

The appellate court held that the Trial Judge committed an error by relying heavily on mere pleadings contained in the society’s written statement instead of legally admissible evidence.

The judgment observed that while the society had made several allegations against Mr. Shah, it had failed to substantiate them through evidence despite being granted numerous opportunities.

Court accepted member’s evidence

The appellate court held that Mr. Shah had successfully established that he had continuously approached the society seeking repairs.

The numerous notices placed on record reflected the persistent leakage problem and demonstrated that the society had failed to provide effective relief despite being aware of the issue.

The court specifically observed that the correspondence showed “the plight of a senior citizen” who continued to suffer because of the leakage without receiving any meaningful response from the society.

The court further held that since terrace waterproofing formed part of the society’s repair project covered by a 10-year guarantee, Mr. Shah was fully justified in approaching the society for rectification.

Why the court did not award full damages

Although the appellate court accepted Mr. Shah’s grievance, it declined to award the entire amount claimed by him.

Mr. Shah had sought compensation towards:

• repair expenditure,
• contributions paid,
• damage to furniture,
• electrical fittings,
• false ceiling,
• and other losses.

However, the court found that he had not produced sufficient documentary proof such as bills, invoices or evidence showing the exact value of the damage.

Consequently, the court held that the precise monetary loss could not be quantified.

Court presumed mental agony and hardship

Despite the absence of documentary proof regarding the exact financial loss, the appellate court observed that the surrounding circumstances clearly demonstrated prolonged hardship.

The court held that a senior citizen had suffered persistent leakage in his residence, repeatedly approached the society for assistance and still did not receive an effective solution.

It observed that under such circumstances, it could reasonably be presumed that he had suffered physical inconvenience, mental agony and financial hardship, making him entitled to compensation.

Court criticised prolonged delays

The appellate court also made strong observations regarding the manner in which the litigation progressed.

It noted that the dispute had been instituted in 2012 but the Co-operative Court delivered its judgment only in 2023.

The appeal itself was finally decided in 2026.

After examining the roznama (daily proceedings), the appellate court observed that the respondents were not serious in prosecuting their defence.

The court specifically recorded that repeated adjournments were taken by the respondents, resulting in considerable delay in disposal of the matter.

This conduct was one of the factors considered by the appellate court while deciding to award compensation to the member.

Final Order

Allowing the appeal, the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court:

• Set aside the Co-operative Court’s judgment dated August 28, 2023.
• Directed Vishal Co-operative Housing Society to pay ₹2 lakh as compensation to Mr. Indravadan Chimanlal Shah.
• Awarded interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the dispute until actual payment.
• Directed both parties to bear their own litigation costs.

The judgment reiterates that housing societies cannot ignore persistent complaints relating to common areas such as terraces and that allegations made in pleadings must be supported by evidence. It also underscores that prolonged inaction and repeated delays in litigation may weigh against societies while courts determine appropriate relief for aggrieved members.

Also Read: Society’s No to Commercial Use Binding: Court Stops Flat Owners from Conversion

The post Housing Society Ordered to Pay ₹2 Lakh to Member Over Terrace Leakage appeared first on Square Feat India.