Haryana

Kurukshetra

203/2017

Khem Ji - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deepak Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhbinder Singh

19 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.203 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 29.09.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:19.03.2018.

Khem Raj son of Sh. Sardara Ram, R/o V.P.O. Ramsaran Majra, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Deepak Kumar, termet specialists pesticides experts Kurukshetra, being proprietor of Thanesar Presto Control Service, Shop No.17, Geeta School Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its proprietor.
2. Thanesar Presto Control Service, Shop No.17, Geeta School Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its proprietor, Deepak Kumar, termet specialists pesticides experts Kurukshetra.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Kedar Rawat, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Ops exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Khem Raj against Deepak Kumar and another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the Ops entered into an agreement dt. 18.08.2014 bearing reference No.3297KKR for treatment of termite/pests.  It is alleged that at the time of termite/post treatment, the Op No.1 assured the complainant that the termite will not last upto 8 years.  The Ops charged Rs.5100/- for the said work but it lasted only 2 years and the termite again started to bread/hatched eggs in the woods frames of doors and window of the house of complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant contacted the Ops for control of presto and termite in his house but the Ops refused to do so.  It is further alleged that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.1,00,000/- as expenses incurred on termite control etc.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to make the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant on account of damages caused to wooden doors, window and other woods articles due to the poor termite services provided by the Ops and to pay the compensation for deficiency in service or any other relief which this Forum may deems fits. 

3.             Upon notice, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 10.11.2017.

4.             To prove his case, ld. counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and thereafter closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for complainant and perused the record carefully.

6.             It is contended by the complainant that the Ops entered into an agreement dt. 18.08.2014 bearing reference No.3297KKR for treatment of termite/pests and the Ops charged Rs.5100/- for the said work. It is further contended by the complainant that at the time of termite/pest treatment, the Op No.1 assured the complainant that the termite will not last upto 8 years but it lasted only 2 years and the termite again started to bread/hatched eggs in the woods frames of doors and window of the house of complainant.  The complainant suffered a loss of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of expenses incurred on termite control etc. but  the complainant has failed to prove any evidence in this regard.  So, in such like circumstances, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.5100/- as incurred by the complainant on treatment of termite/pests.

        Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the complaint of complainant is allowed and we direct the Ops to refund Rs.5100/- to the complainant.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization and penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:19.03.2018.

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member