Delhi

East Delhi

CC/56/2016

PRADEEP GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HICARE SERVICE - Opp.Party(s)

13 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 56/16

 

Shri Pradeep Goel

S/o Late Shri Prem Nath Goel

R/o 340, Gali No. 2, Guru Ram Das Nagar

Laxmi Nagar, Near Doctor Yadav Nursing Home

Delhi – 101 092                                                                    ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

1. M/s. Hicare Services Pvt. Ltd.

(Through its Managing Director/Directors)

E-55 & 56, 2^nd Floor, Sector-3

Noida, UP

 

2. Mr. Shiv Chandra Jha

Sales Executive

M/s. Hicae Services Pvt. Ltd.

E-55 & 56, 2^nd Floor, Sector-3

Noida, UP

 

3. Mr. Rajkumar Bhardwaj

Sales Executive

M/s. Hicae Services Pvt. Ltd.

E-55 & 56, 2^nd Floor, Sector-3

Noida, UP                                                                        …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 03.02.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 13.08.2018

Judgement Passed on: 24.08.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Pradeep Goel against         M/s. Hicare Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), Mr. Shiv Chandra Jha, Sales Executive of OP-1 (OP-2) and Mr. Rajkumar Bharadwaj, Sales Executive of OP-1 (OP-3) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that on the assurance of OP-2 and OP-3, the complainant got his premises treated for termites by opting the services termed as TERMIN-8 of OP-1 by paying a sum of Rs. 8,000/- on 03.11.2014. 

            The complainant was shocked to see that termites started resurgence in the premises treated by OPs and completely destroyed the furniture of about Rs. 5,00,000/- due to ineffective, deficient and useless pest control services.  The complainant approached OPs and made several complaints, but no satisfactory response came from their side. 

            A legal notice dated 19.11.2015 was sent by the complainant which was neither replied nor complied.  Hence, he has prayed for direction to OPs to refund Rs. 8,000/-, the cost of pest control treatment; Rs. 5,00,000/- compensation towards the losses, trouble, harassment and mental agony.

 3.        In the Written Statement filed by both OPs, they have stated that the top floor wooden furniture was already badly affected/destroyed when complainant approached OP for treatment of termite as evident from the inspection report.  It was denied that any assurance was made that termite will not re-appear. 

            It was stated that as per Service Contract Form dated 03.11.2014, OP shall not by any means be or become liable to the customers for any damage suffered by them directly or indirectly through the presence of pest in the premise contracted.  OP was only liable to provide re-service.    

            It was further stated that the validity period of the Service Contract Form was from 03.11.2014 to 02.11.2015 and as a pre-decided thought, the complainant suddenly raised an issue vide its legal notice dated 19.11.2015 just to put pressure on OPs.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OPs was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of his complaint. 

5.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. 

            In defence, OPs have examined Shri Subhash Chander Dhasmana, Operation Manager, who has also deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement. 

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OP that premises/furniture of the complainant was highly infected with the termite which was evident from the inspection report filed by the complainant himself.  It has further been stated that this report was signed by the complainant which shows that he accepted the high termite infestation. 

            He has further argued that under the Service Contract Form dated 03.11.2014, it was clearly mentioned that OP shall not be liable for any damage suffered by them directly or indirectly through the presence of pest in the premises contracted.  Their liability was limited to retreat the said premises.  The complainant agreed with all the terms and conditions of the Service Contract Form which was valid from 03.11.2014 to 02.11.2015.  

            He has further stated that the complainant suddenly raised the issue through his legal notice of dated 19.11.2015 which was to put pressure on OPs.  He has also placed reliance on judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well of Hon’ble National Commission such as Bharathi Knitting Co. vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courtier (reported in 1996: 4SCC 704); where the law has been laid down that the Forum and Commissions ought not to go behind the terms of agreement and should insist the matter referred to the civil courts. 

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant have argued that the complainant was not informed with regard to the precautions which were required to be taken by the complainant.  The complainant should have been told to remove and prevent resurgence of termite in his premises/furniture if the premises were highly infected, as stated on behalf of OPs.  With regard to the validity of service contract, it has been sated that the complainant made several complaints regarding ineffectiveness and re-emergence of the termite in his premises/furniture, but OPs did not pay any heed to his request.       

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the testimony of the complainant as well as                Shri Subhash Chander Dhasmana of OPs working as Operation Manager of OPs and the documents placed on record.  Complainant Pradeep Goel in his testimony has stated that he agreed to get his premises treated for the termites and opted their service termed as TERMIN-8 at the cost of          Rs. 8,000/- and the treatment was carried out on 03.11.2014.                  Shri Subhash Chander Dhasmana have stated that complainant signed the service contract form dated 03.11.2014, the validity of which was for one year from 03.11.2014 to 02.11.2015. 

            The complainant, though have filed the inspection report alongwith his complaint, but he has not got exhibited the same in his testimony.  Similarly, no document has been got exhibited in the testimony of            Shri Subhash Chander Dhasmana, though they have made reference to the service contract form which was valid from 03.11.2014 to 02.11.2015, as has been stated in his testimony.  Though, this service contract has not been filed by OPs, but the same has not been denied by counsel for complainant during the course of arguments.  Thus, the fact remains that there was a service contract, the validity for which was one year i.e. from 03.11.2014 to 02.11.2015, the documents of which has been placed on record by the complainant himself.   

            Inspection report was prepared on 03.11.2014 which was the date of treatment.  In this inspection report, it is noticed that under Head ‘Infection Level’, it has been stated as “High”.   Further, under the column ‘Type of Service Required’, ‘Annual contract’ has been stated.  Further, under the column ‘Remarks and specific instructions for technicians’, it has been stated as “Highly effected in top floor wooden”.  This inspection report has been signed by the complainant.  Thus, from this inspection report, it is noticed that the infestation level of premises was high, particularly top floor wooden. 

            The service has been done under the annual contract which has not been disputed by both the parties.  When the premises were highly infected, the emergence of termite cannot be ruled out.  Not only that, it has also come on record that the service contract was valid from 03.11.2014 to 02.11.2015.  There is nothing on record to show that the complainant made any complaint during the validity of the service contract.  Simply, by putting the case in the legal notice will not make out a case for deficiency in service. 

            Thus, from the testimony of complainant as well as of Shri Subhash Chander Dhasmana and the documents placed on record, it comes out that the premises were highly infected and emergence of termite cannot be ruled out.  Even if there was emergence of termite, the complainant should have availed the services of OPs which he has not done so.  That being so, there cannot be said to be any deficiency on the part of OPs.  The arguments advanced and the judgements relied upon by Ld. Counsel for OPs hold good. 

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complaint has no merit.  Hence, the complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.           

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                          (SUKHDEV SINGH)

       Member                                                                                President