Case No.CC/332/2018

Date of Institution: -17.08.2018

Order Reserved on: - 09.07.2024

           Date of Order: -26.07.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Professor Kamal JitChhiber

R/o 98-C, Pocket-I,

Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi – 110091.

          …..Complainant

VERSUS

Perfect 24x7 Pest Control

E-149, Harkesh Nagar,

Okhla Phase-II,

New Delhi – 110020.

..…Opposite Party

O R D E R

DR. HARSHALI KAUR, MEMBER

1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Complainant hired the service of the OP for termite extermination, who undertook the service by giving a 2-year guarantee for the job undertaken as alleged by the Complainant.
2. The OP conducted the pest control service at the Complainant’s house, spraying his house and furniture to kill termites and rats, and performed general pest control on 12.07.2018. The Complainant has annexed the copy of the maintenance contract no. 386 dated 12.07.2018 towards this service provided (Page 1).
3. After the pest control service was completed by the OP, the Complainant was surprised to see that the next day, the termites, instead of getting killed, were all over the surfaces of his furniture and kitchen. The Complainant immediately contacted the OP, who sent his employee, Sh. Kallu, on 13.07.2018. The OP asked the Complainant to call his carpenter to assist his employee. Despite the employee of the OP spraying the home and furniture of his house, the termites were not killed.
4. When the Complainant called the OP again, he was unreachable. Despite the Complainant making efforts to contact the OP when the OP was not responding to the Complainant’s calls, the Complainant lodged a police complaint. Only after the police complaint did the OP offer to refund the amount paid by the Complainant to him, but he refused to pay any damages to the Complainant.
5. Further, due to the deficient service of the OP, the Complainant suffered financial loss as he had to change the furniture due to the infestation of termites on the advice of his carpenter.The Complainanthas annexed the pictures to corroboratehis averments from pages 12 to 16 of his complaint.
6. Thereafter, theComplainant issued a legal notice to the OP to no avail. The Complainant has annexed the copy of the legal notice on Page 4 of the complaint. When the OP did not resolve his grievance, the Complainant filed the present complaint before this Forum on 24.08.2018, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP. He has sought directions to the OP to pay Rs.40,000/- towards the reconstruction of the modular kitchen and furniture of his house due to OP’s deficient service alongwith damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for the mental and physical suffering caused to him and his family and litigation cost.
7. Notice was issued to the OP to file his reply. When the Complainant filed the proof of adequate service, the OP was proceeded ex-parte. The Complainant filed his Ex-parte evidence by way of an affidavit and then chose not to appear despite several opportunities to file the written arguments and to address oral arguments since 29.11.2019. Due to the long pendency of the present case, we felt it prudent to decide the case on the basis of material on record and hence the order was reserved.
8. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and have also perused the documents filed by the Complainant on record to substantiate his sworn testimony. 
9. We find that the Complainant hired the services of the OP to get pest control treatment for his house on 12.07.2018. The OP issued the maintenance contract no. 386 towards the work done by one Sh. Kallu, to whom the Complainant paid Rs.13,000/- as per the document annexed onPage 3 of the complaint.
10. The Complainant has alleged that the OP used adulterated material to do pest control in his premises, leading to the termites spreading all over his house and damaging his furniture and modular kitchen. Therefore, he had to incur substantial financial loss to repair and reconstruct his furniture. The Complainant contacted the OP to complain about the pest control service, which he had allegedly guaranteedwould last for 2 years and asked for a refund. When the OP did not heed the Complainant, he approached the police, after which the OP messaged him to re-do the service. The Complainant filed the present complaint thereafter.
11. The OP is Ex-Parte; hence, we have no reason to disbelieve the Complainant’s unrebutted and uncontested testimony, which the Complainant has duly substantiated with documentary evidence.
12. Further, a bare perusal of the document annexed on page no. 7 of the complaint, which is the copy of the WhatsApp chat message annexed by the Complainant, clarifies that the OP was willing to refund the amount or ready to repeat the pest control work. This document is enough to clarify that the pest control service given to the Complainant by the OP was deficient.
13. Hence, allowing the complaint, we direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.13,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand) paid by the Complainant for the dissatisfactory and deficient pest control service rendered along with Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment faced by the Complainant and his family inclusive of litigation cost.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to Record Room.
• Announce in the open Court on 26.07.2024.