People's Court of Pingcheng District, Datong City, Shanxi Province
paper of civil judgment
(2021) Jin 0213 Min Chu No. 6081
Plaintiff: Qi X, male, Han nationality, born on October 15, 1991, unemployed, living in Pingcheng District, Datong City.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Ding Sword , a lawyer of Shanxi Jiulun Law Firm.
Defendant: Shanxi XX Company, whose domicile is XX, South Ring Road, Pingcheng District, Datong, Shanxi Province.
Legal representative: Chen X, manager of the unit.
Defendant's agent: Zhang XX, male, Han nationality, born on November 28, 1987, is an employee of the company.
In the case of dispute over property service contract between the plaintiff Qi X and the defendant Shanxi XX Company, the court applied summary procedure according to law and held a public hearing on September 29, 2021. The plaintiff Qi X entrusted an agent ad litem Ding Sword Zhang XX, the entrusted agent ad litem of the defendant Shanxi XX Company, attended the proceedings in court. The trial of this case has now been concluded.
The plaintiff Qi X filed a claim to the Court: 1. According to the law, the defendant was ordered to return 7100 yuan of elevator repair fees paid by the plaintiff and 5000 yuan of house appraisal fees; Total: 12100 yuan; 2、 Repair and improve the waterproof curling of roof drainage ditch for the common part of the house; 3、 The litigation costs of this case shall be borne by the defendant. Facts and reasons: The plaintiff is the XX owner of the second order on the fifth floor of the first phase of Fudi Yulan Bay in Datong City. In July 2020, Pingcheng District of Datong City coincided with heavy rain, and the precipitation increased. The defendant's property company failed to clean the drainage ditch on the room surface in time, resulting in water storage in low-lying areas, rainwater leaking into the elevator hall, and elevator failure. After the plaintiff found the fault, he repeatedly reported it to the defendant's property management company, but the defendant has been delayed in repairing it. The plaintiff had difficulty getting up and down the stairs due to the inconvenience of family members, so he had no choice but to repair the elevator himself. The plaintiff signed a property management service contract with the defendant. According to the provisions of Articles 10 and 21 of the contract, the defendant should maintain, repair, service and manage the common parts of the house, common facilities and equipment. If the plaintiff's losses are caused by failing to meet the agreed objectives of management service quality and make corrections within the time limit, the defendant should bear corresponding legal liabilities. To sum up, the defendant violated the contract and caused corresponding losses to the plaintiff. The court is requested to support the plaintiff's claim on the basis of finding out the facts.
The defendant Shanxi XX Company argued that there was a property service contract relationship between the two parties, and whether the original complaint was accepted or not. The plaintiff claims that the elevator is a private property rather than a public area. The elevator is a supporting facility of the house. The damage to the elevator is caused by water leakage. The water leakage is caused by the plaintiff's failure to repair the elevator due to decoration violations. The roof gutter and floor drain are blocked, causing water to overflow the roof waterproof curls, causing water leakage. The plaintiff shall bear the responsibility for illegally building a sunshine room right above the elevator.
The parties submitted evidence in accordance with the law around the claim. The Court organized the parties to exchange evidence and cross examine evidence. The Court confirmed the evidence and facts that were not disputed by the parties and provided evidence in the volume.
The court found out the following facts after hearing: the plaintiff is the XX owner of the second sheet on the fifth floor of Fudi Yulan Bay Phase 1, Pingcheng District, Datong City, and the defendant provides property services for the community. In July 2020, the drainage ditch on the roof of the house involved in the case was not cleaned in time after the rain, which led to the rainwater leaking into the elevator hall and the elevator failure after the water overflowed the waterproof curling. After the plaintiff failed to claim to the defendant to repair the elevator, the plaintiff paid for the repair of the elevator fault.
After the accident, the plaintiff entrusted Datong XX Company to apply for appraisal of the house safety. On August 8, 2020, the agency issued an appraisal report, which stated that the house safety was rated as Grade B, the houses involved in the case basically met the safety and applicable requirements, and the main structure basically met the normal use requirements of the house safety; And put forward detection suggestions: the waterproof curling of the roof drainage ditch should be made under the eaves, the drainage slope of the roof drainage ditch should be smooth (the existing low-lying water storage place), no water should be stored, and the elevator should be repaired as soon as possible, so that residents can travel normally.
The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the defendant should repair the waterproof curling of the roof drainage ditch and bear the repair cost of the plaintiff's elevator. The Court believes that the plaintiff provided the property service contract and the elevator maintenance invoice, and the defendant argued that the plaintiff had illegally built a sunshine room right above the elevator and reconstructed the downpipe, and the plaintiff should bear the repair cost, And provide notice of rectification against violations and disclaimer, photos of staff maintaining the roof, and completion acceptance records of decoration works. The Court believes that the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Property Service Contract stipulates that the property management services provided by Party B (the defendant) within the property management area include the repair, maintenance and management of the common parts of the property; The roof of the house involved in this case belongs to the property management area, and the property service management company should fulfill the obligation of proper maintenance. The nature of the house surface is a public area, and the defendant should regularly maintain and repair the roof drain. Therefore, the Court supports the plaintiff's claim that the defendant should repair the waterproof curling of the roof drain in the common part of the house.
The defendant argued that there was a potential safety hazard for the staff to the roof due to the plaintiff's illegal construction of the sunshine room. The Court believed that the defendant could reach the roof involved in the case and maintain the roof drainage in the later stage. The plaintiff's illegal construction of the sunshine room did not constitute the defendant's exemption from the maintenance obligation for the public area of its property management area, The exemption clause provided by the defendant and signed with the plaintiff agreed that "due to the closure of the north and south balconies on the fifth and sixth floors, the property rights cannot be handled normally and the normal life of other owners of the community is affected due to the renovation, the owner shall bear all the responsibilities". The exemption clause agreed that the property rights cannot be handled normally and the normal life of other owners of the community is affected, The case does not apply; The defendant argued that the plaintiff should bear the responsibility for the transformation of the downpipe. The court believed that the reason for the poor roof drainage was not the reason the defendant thought, because the defendant had carried out the drainage and cleaning of the roof normally in the later period, and the court did not accept the defendant's defense opinion. In the event that the property service enterprise repairs, maintains and manages the house, supporting facilities, equipment and related sites, and maintains the environmental sanitation and related order in the property management area, the plaintiff, as the owner, has fulfilled the obligation to pay property fees, and the defendant shall fulfill the relevant obligations in accordance with the contract. In this case, the defendant failed to perform the cleaning obligation of roof drainage in time, which led to the ponding on the roof after the rain overflowed the waterproof curling, and the rain leaked into the elevator hall, causing the elevator to malfunction, so the defendant should be liable for the plaintiff's elevator losses. The maintenance fee invoice provided by the plaintiff can prove that the plaintiff actually paid 7100 yuan for elevator repair, and the Court supports the plaintiff's claim that the defendant should compensate 7100 yuan for elevator repair.
With regard to the focus of whether the appraisal fee in this case should be borne by the defendant, the appraisal report provided by the plaintiff is the appraisal of the safety of the house. The appraisal conclusion is that the safety of the house is rated as Grade B, and the house involved in the case basically meets the requirements of safety application; Three detection suggestions put forward in the appraisal conclusion: the waterproof curling of the roof drainage ditch should be made under the eaves, the drainage slope of the roof drainage ditch should be smooth (the existing low-lying water storage place), and no water should be stored, and the elevator should be repaired as soon as possible to enable residents to travel normally; The Court believes that the house safety appraisal is not related to the case, and the plaintiff's application for house safety appraisal is his own expanded loss; Since the conclusion of the test suggestion in the appraisal conclusion was accepted by our court, we decided that the plaintiff should bear the appraisal fee of 2500 yuan and the defendant should bear the appraisal fee of 2500 yuan.
In conclusion, according to Article 35 of the Property Management Regulations, the judgment is as follows:
1、 The defendant Shanxi XX Company repaired the waterproof curling of the roof drainage ditch in the common part of the house within ten days from the effective date of this judgment;
2、 The defendant Shanxi XX Company shall compensate the plaintiff Qi X elevator repair fee of 7100 yuan within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment;
3、 The defendant Shanxi XX Company shall pay the plaintiff Qi X appraisal fee of 2500 yuan within ten days from the effective date of this judgment.
If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in this judgment, the interest on the debt during the delayed period shall be doubled in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.
The case acceptance fee is charged by half, which is 51 yuan, 11 yuan for the plaintiff and 40 yuan for the defendant.
If you are not satisfied with this judgment, you can submit a petition of appeal to this court within 15 days from the date of service of the written judgment, and submit copies according to the number of the opposite party or representatives to appeal to the Datong Intermediate People's Court of Shanxi Province.
Judge Zhou XXchao
November 23, 2012
Clerk Zhang XX
