Date of Filing:18.02.2009<br /> Date of Order:24.07.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 24TH DAY OF JULY 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 420 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Farah Ahmad,<br /> # 301, Kastle Vista, 1st Main, <br /> Vignan Nagar, Bangalore-560 037. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. Godrej HiCare Limited,<br /> Head Office: Godrej HiCare Limited,<br /> Pirojshabagarg, Eastern Express Highways,<br /> Vikhroli(East), Mumbai-400 079.<br /> <br /> 2. Godrej HiCare Limited,<br /> PEST Management Service,<br /> 23rd Cross, 12th Main, Jayanagar,<br /> III Block, Near: Swimming Pool,<br /> Bangalore-560 075. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant stating that, as per the opted INTELLIGEL-R-3-GENERIC service, opposite party is bound to provide 3 treatments for pest management for the period from 26th July-2008 to 25th July-2009 for the contract value of Rs.2,700/- which was paid in cash on 28th July-2008. The opposite party provided first treatment of pest management on the day when contract was signed and projected regular service will be provided in the interval of 4 months within one year of contract period. After four months of the treatment, pests were observed and complain was raised to call center provided by the opposite party. In spite of raising complaint through phone, only assurance was given for second treatment opposite party has not turned up for second treatment of service. The attendant always promised to provide second due treatment but failed even though complain was raised multiple times. Due to absence of second treatment on time, lot of damage is done in kitchen due to croak roaches and affected the food items in a kitchen in last 4 months. Hence, the complainant prayed to compensate total sum of Rs.86,600/- for damages and mental agony. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party by RPAD. The notice was served. Opposite parties put in appearance and defence version filed stating that, complainant had opted Intellegel-R-3-Generic Services and paid sum of Rs.1,800/- for the yearly contract. The same shall be performed thrice in a year. During the said period one of the employee had committed breach of trust and misappropriation, he had failed to maintain proper records pertaining the complainant. Hence, the opposite party unintentionally failed to perform the end service. The opposite party had contacted the complainant after receipt of his complaint and promised to return the entire amount of Rs. 1,800/- paid by the complainant and also do the service free of cost. As per the complainant was adamant in demanding around Rs. 60,000/-, the opposite party did not heed to the unjustified demand of the complainant. Even today, the opposite party is ready and willing to return a sum of Rs. 1,800/- and extend the service free of cost. The opposite party submits that the damages suffered by the complainant are imaginary and not supported by any evidence. Hence, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the <br /> part of opposite parties?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation? If so what would be the quantum of compensation? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. It is an admitted case of the parties that, the complainant opted INTELLIGEL-R-3-GENERIC service from the opposite party and she has paid Rs.2,700/- for a contract period of one year. The complainant has produced order details and payment details and payment receipt. From all these documents, it is clear that the complainant has paid Rs. 2,700/- to the opposite parties for a contract period from 26th July-2008 to 25th July-2009. The opposite party in a defence version and also in the affidavit of Jeslin Joseph an officer working in the opposite party company stated that complainant had paid Rs.1,800/- for the contract period of one year. This defence is contrary to the documents. As per the documents, receipt and payment details it is very clear that the complainant has paid Rs.2,700/- to the opposite party. But the opposite party nowhere in the defence version stated that complainant has paid Rs.2,700/-. Therefore, the opposite party has not disclosed and admitted the true factual aspect. It is also admitted case of the parties that the opposite party had provided first treatment of pest management on the day when contract was signed. As per the contract the opposite party has to provide service in the interval of 4 months within one year of contract period. It is an admitted case of the opposite party that it has failed to provide three more periodical services. Therefore, it is a clear case of deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has come up with a proposal that the opposite party is ready to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,800/- and also do free service. By this statement also it is very clear that there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the facts of the case. Almost all the facts are admitted. The only defence taken by the opposite party in not giving service as promised is that one of the employee of opposite party company had committed breach of trust and misappropriation and he had failed to maintain proper records. Therefore, opposite party could not do the service as per the commitment. The said problem is nothing to do with the complainant. If the employee of the opposite party company committed breach of trust and misappropriation, the said matter is the internal problem of the opposite party company. The complainant is nowhere responsible for the internal problem of the opposite party. The fact remains that as per the commitment and obligation the opposite party company has not given service to complainant. It is the case of the complainant that due to absence of second treatment on time lot of damage had been caused to her kitchen due to cockroaches and she had also suffered harassment and spent her time and energy in raising the matter multiple times with the opposite party. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interest of the consumers. Consumer/customer is the most important visitor in the premises of the service provider, he/she is not dependant on the service provider and on the other hand service providers are dependant on the consumers/customers. Though the matter appears to be small and the amount paid by the complainant is small amount of Rs.2,700/-, but the fact remains that the opposite party has failed in its commitment and obligation. The complainant had demanded Rs.60,000/- as compensation since her kitchen had been effected by cockroaches and she has demanded Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony. The amount claimed by the complainant appears to be exorbitant. There is no legal and justifiable ground in demanding very exorbitant amount. But on the facts and circumstances of the case it is a fit case to grant reasonable amount of compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service and for mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant. The opposite party can be directed to refund Rs.2,700/- to the complainant. In addition to this refund it would be just, fair and proper to grant Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.2,700/- to the complainant. In addition to this refund the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony, inconvenience and hardship. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately as per statutory requirement. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 24TH DAY OF JULY-2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> Rhr., <br /> <br />