BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.506 of 2015
Date of institution: 06.10.2015
Date of Decision: 18.03.2016
Karamjit Singh Rudra son of Gurdial Singh, 938, Phase 3B2, Mohali 160059.
……..Complainant
Versus
B.K. Pest Control Service, SCO 1579, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
OP ex-parte.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:
- Refund him the amount of Rs.5,200/- charged for providing pest control treatment.
- pay him Rs.25,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and deficiency in service.
- pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
The complainant had paid Rs.5,200/- to the OP on 19.10.2013 for providing pest control treatment in his house for a period of three years. On 13.08.2014 i.e. within one year, the complainant found termite in his bathroom and called the OP. The pest control treatment was applied on 14.08.2014. The complainant again found the termite on 19.01.2015 i.e. within five months of the previous treatment and the termite was also available on the door frame. Again the OP applied the treatment on 25.01.2015. But then on third time the termite was found on 13.09.2015 which shows that the OP has not applied the treatment properly. The chemical applied by the OP was not proper which could not prevent the termite. The termite attack the wood from inside and no visible sign of infestation appear as it is all hidden. Thus, with these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint
2. As per the India Post Tracking Report, the notice sent to the OP was delivered on 05.12.2015. Inspite of this none appeared for them and the OP was thus proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.01.2016.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-3.
4. We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the pleadings and evidence of the complainant.
5. The complainant has availed the services of the OP for anti termite treatment of his house. The chemical for the anti termite treatment was sold by the OP to the complainant and the anti termite treatment application services was also provided by the OP and for all the process i.e. the cost of the chemical as well as application charges have been paid by the complainant to the OP vide receipt dated 19.10.2013 for Rs.5,200/-. The receipt cum guarantee card dated 19.10.2013 Ex.C-1 issued by the OP in favour of the complainant clearly shows the guarantee for the work stands for 3 years. If termite appearing during this period, it shall be re-treated infested spots by the OP free of cost on intimation. As per the complainant the efficacy of chemical used for anti termite treatment was not upto the mark and due to this reason termite reappeared within a period of one year. The complainant approached the OP and the OP re-coating and retreatment but still the problem persist causing damage to the wood. Since the complainant has warranty of three years, the OP has failed to provide after sale services upto the agreed warranty period causing further damage to the property. The complainant has proved this fact from CD Ex.C-2, photographs Ex.C-3. The complainant has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh titled as M/s. Frontier Pest Control Limited vs. Pardeep Mehta in FA No.505 of 2009 decided on 14.10.2010. We are of the considered opinion that under the facts of present complaint the OP has failed to provide satisfactory service to the complainant and the case of the complainant is fully covered by Consumer Protection Act., 1986 under Section 2(oo) spurious goods and services mean such goods and services which are claimed to be genuine but they are actually not so. The complainant has proved from the facts and evidence that for anti termite treatment, the medicine and chemical used by the OP is spurious one though no expert opinion has been produced by the complainant but prima facie led us to believe from the photographs and the CD that the medicine/chemical applied is not of proper potency and efficacious to eradiate the termite from the premises of the complainant. Thus there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the OP is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for which the complainants deserve to be compensated.
6. Since the OP has undertaken to provide warranty of three years and said three years period has still not expired, therefore, it will be appropriate if the OP is asked to give the fresh anti termite treatment by using proper and effective chemical so that the property of the complainant is saved from future damage.
7. The complaint, therefore, is allowed with the following directions to the OP:
(a) to undertake the anti termite treatment in the house of the complainant with good quality of chemical, to the satisfaction of the complainant.
(b) to pay to the complainant lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
March 18, 2016.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
