Faulty terrace repairs flooded two flats; Maharashtra court awards senior citizen Rs 3.96 lakh compensation

Mr Shah, a senior citizen residing in a housing society in Andheri (East), Mumbai, went through a lot of hassles and a lengthy 14-year legal battle to get compensation from his housing society for bad roof work that led to water leakage in his flat.

To sum it up, Mr Shah owned two adjoining top floor apartments (no. 603 and 604) in the building. Back in 2006, the housing society decided to undertake serious structural repairs since the building was around 30 years old. They collected about Rs 33.58 lakh from all the 28 flats for the major repairs of the 'H' Wing, based on the square footage of each flat. Mr Shah's share of this amount was Rs 1.52 lakh for the repair work in his two apartments.

In addition to this, Mr Shah spent an extra Rs 2.66 to repair his flat separately. So in total, Shah shelled out Rs 4.18 lakh (2.66+1.52) for the repairs.


The housing society awarded the structural repair contract worth Rs 27.44 lakh to a contractor named Mr Dhami and Mr D. Mhatre was appointed as a consultant.

The repair work started by December 2006 and the water proofing of the terrace was finished by May 23, 2007. This contract also included a 10-year guarantee for the work done. The stability certificate for the repair work was issued by the structural engineer on May 18, 2008.

Broadly, the contract repair work covered:

• Surface preparation and allied works
• Structural repairs
• Civil repairs
• Terrace waterproofing
• Plumbing works
• Painting works

The society claimed that there was no water leakage at the two stages of this repair work and that the work was carried out diligently. To back up this claim, the society said that on July 4, 2007, a monsoon leakage report was prepared by the Consultant (Mr D. Mhatre) confirming that there was no leakage.

However, Shah, whose both flats are on the top floor, contradicted the society's stance and alleged that the contractor, while working on the RCC slab, damaged it by hammering and old WR treatment layers broke. Thus Shah at once informed the Repair Committee members that the terrace water proofing work had failed and he was facing heavy water leakage in both his flats which were situated below the terrace.

Shah also claimed the water leakage damaged his false ceiling, electrical fittings, paint, furniture and other fixtures and thus between 2009 and 2011, he repeatedly wrote to the society seeking repairs, but despite assurances, the leakage problem remained unresolved. He therefore approached the Maharashtra Co-operative Court seeking directions to the housing society to rectify the defects and to compensate him for the damage and mental agony caused to him.

On April 24, 2012, the housing society held a meeting where they suggested to Mr Shah that he could hire a contractor of his choice to handle water proofing repair work himself, and the society would cover 50% of the expenses.

Mr Shah however, rejected the society's suggestions, arguing that he didn't own the terrace and that the damage was due to faulty workmanship from the contractor hired by the society, which supposedly came with a 10-year guarantee period.

Shah then requested the society to show him a copy of the BMC permission that was granted before the renovation of the 'H' Wing began. He also demanded the structural certificate for the 'H' Wing and insisted that the issue be resolved before the monsoon season. He warned that if the work was not done in time and there was any short circuit or any problem caused by the leakage, the Society would be held accountable.

On July 4, 2026, Mr Shah won the case in Maharashtra Co-Operative Appellate Court. Dr. Srishty Neelkanth, member of the appellate court, said that Mr Shah could prove his case by leading cogent evidence.

Read on to know more about why Mr Shah won the case.

Also read: Homebuyer finds water leakages and seepage issues weeks after buying flat; Telangana RERA orders builder to relay terrace flooring, carry out waterproofing work

Why Mr Shah won the case

Zahir Tapia, Associate, ALMT Legal, said to ET Wealth Online that Mr Shah, a 72-year-old resident occupying two top-floor flats, succeeded primarily because he produced documentary evidence showing persistent leakage from the terrace, repeated complaints to the housing society and the society’s failure to provide an effective remedy.

The terrace waterproofing formed part of major repairs commissioned by the society under an agreement that carried a ten-year guarantee. The society’s own correspondence acknowledged the continuing problem. The Appellant's evidence was not challenged in cross-examination, while the society did not produce witnesses or documents to prove its defence.

The Appellate Court therefore held that repairing the terrace leakage was the society’s responsibility under its bye-laws and that the trial court had wrongly treated the society’s unproved allegations as evidence.

Although the appellant/resident could not prove the precise value of his damaged property, the Court awarded him Rs.2 lakh, with 7% annual interest from the filing of the dispute, for the financial loss and physical and mental distress caused by the prolonged inaction.

Tapia says that the main learning is to document everything; complain in writing, retain proof of service, take dated photographs and videos, obtain an engineer’s report, permit and record inspections and preserve bills for repairs and damaged property.

Tapia says: "Residents should also check whether the terrace, external wall or other source of leakage is a common area that the society must maintain under its registered bye-laws."

According to Tapia, the practical lessons apply throughout India, but the governing statute, bye-laws and legal forum differ from state to state; this decision does not mean that every leakage complaint automatically attracts compensation.

Tapia says that this is an appellate decision arising from the trial's evidentiary record, compensation if any in such matters, will depend on the source of leakage, the governing bye-laws, notice to the society, access for inspection, proof of causation and loss and the evidence led by both sides.

Also read: Parents wins back their flat gifted to son as tribunal finds son failed to take care of parents; Bombay HC orders son to vacate the property

Maharashtra Co-Operative Appellate Court order

A summary of the judgement is as follows:

Shah could not give monetary evidence about the loss suffered by him

Despite Shah's assertion that he suffered a loss of Rs 2 lakh due to the damage to the false ceiling, electric instruments etc from the water leakage, he failed to provide any proof of this.

Given this situation, the appellate court agreed with the Trial Judge's observations stating that Shah was unable to present evidence of the exact payments he made for his contributions. Additionally, he did not provide any details of items or bills for the damages caused to the furniture and fixtures in his flats, which would have allowed for an accurate calculation of the total amount for those items.

Even though the extent of damage could not be determined, the possibility of some damage due to water leakage remained

The appellate court said that from the entire circumstances, it seems that a senior citizen had water leakages in the ceiling of his flats which as per Bye-laws, the housing society was supposed to get repaired.

Shah was really upset about the water leakages, so he sent numerous notices and reminders to the Society, but they initially did not bother to reply. The reply filed on record was from 2011, that is two years after the first notice (as per record) was sent. Even then, Shah didn't get any satisfactory solution.

Shah had failed to prove the amount of money he had paid to the Society and the loss incurred by him. But the appellate court said that it can be presumed that in such circumstances, he must have suffered physical/mental agony and financial losses.

The appellate court said: "Thus, in such circumstances, he is entitled to be compensated. Sadly, though it is a dispute of the year 2012, the Judgment was passed in the year 2023 and today, the Appeal filed by the Disputant (Shah) is being decided in 2026. The roznama filed on record shows that the Opponents were not serious in prosecuting their case which led to numerous adjournments."

Thus, the appellate court said, that in their considered view, an amount of Rs 2 lakh with interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the dispute till payment of the amount, would meet the ends of justice.

Thus, for the above stated reasons the appellate court ruled in Shah's favour.

• Calculations:
  Principal: Rs. 2,00,000
  Interest: 7% per annum (simple interest)
  Dispute filed: sometime in 2012
  Amount calculated up to the appellate judgment dated July 4, 2026

The interest would be approximately for 14 years. Interest: Rs 2,00,000 × 7% × 14 = Rs. 1,96,000. Total= Rs 2 lakh+1.96 lakh= Rs 3.96 lakh

This assumes the dispute was filed around July 2012 and payment was made on the date of the appellate judgment (July 4, 2026). Since the court actually directed interest until the date of payment, the amount would continue to increase at Rs. 14,000 per year after July 4, 2026 until the society pays.