Haryana

Karnal

CC/169/2020

M/s Organo Research laboratory - Complainant(s)

Versus

Quarantine Management Service - Opp.Party(s)

Kanv Deep Singh

08 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 169 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.18.03.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:08.03.2022

 

M/s Organo Research Laboratory, House no.2052/13, Urban Estate, Karnal through its Proprietor Raj Rani Bansal wife of late Shri Durga Dass, (aged about 92 years) (Aadhar card no.588657349885) through her Special Power of Attorney holder Shri Purshotam Bansal son of late Shri Durga Dass, resident of House no.2052/13, Urban Estate, Karna, (Mobile no.93555-02052).

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Quarantine Management Service, Regd. office: plot no.54, First floor, Arya Nagar, Assandh Road, Panipat, Pin 132103, through its authorized person. Contact no.99917-57600.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

       

          

 Argued by: Shri Kanav Deep Singh, counsel for complainant.

opposite party exparte.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is an old aged lady and she has executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of her son Shri Purshotam Bansal, being son he is well conversant with the facts of the case. As such present complaint filed by the complainant through her Special Power of Attorney holder.

2.             It is averred that complainant is living on the abovesaid address i.e. House no.2052/13, Urban Estate, Karnal from the last more than 10 years with her family members. The said house is on the name of her daughter-in-law namely Sunita P. Bansal. Complainant-firm is being run by the complainant in the aforesaid house and has its working office in the said house. In January, 2018 the complainant decided to renovate her abovesaid house and do some modern wooden work in the house and for that purpose around Rs.2,50,000/- was spent by the complainant on wooden work in the house. For the safety of wooden work, the complainant decided to get it termite secured by taking the services of the OP which is doing anti-termite treatment service and is a renowned company for the said purpose. On 24.07.2018, the complainant called the OP to do anti-termite treatment in the abovesaid wooden renovated portion, the OP had charged Rs.9440/-, vide tax invoice no.QMS/18-19/006 dated 24.07.2018 and had given four years termite warranty to prevent attacks by subterranean termites and had given a complete surety that the expensive wooden work got done by the complainant will not get damage for the next four years and for that purpose, they had given warranty on the said tax invoice itself.

3.             It is further averred that after six months only, termites became very much visible on the wooden work as well as sides of the wooden work as the passage of the termites appeared around the walls near the wooden work, on which complainant called the OP to look over the matter. After sometimes, the OP sent a concerned person for the cure of the problem occurred due to termites and again they have put termite medicines inside the wooden work.  But it was of no use, because the termites again appeared on the wooden work after a period of few days but OP did not nothing into the matter and due to this reason, the entire wooden work of the complainant’s house has been damaged. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs.2,50,000/- on account of total damage of wooden work alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.             On notice, initially on 18.01.2021 Shri Pardeep, Supervisor appeared on behalf of OP and the case was adjourned to 12.02.2021 for filing written version on behalf OP. On 12.02.2021 Shri Pardeep, Supervisor appeared but did not file any written version. Thereafter, none has appeared on behalf of OP till 13.07.2021. On 13.07.2021 representative of OP appeared and sought an adjournment for filing written version and on the request of representative of OP, case is adjourned to 03.08.2021 for filing written version but on 03.08.2021 neither none appeared on behalf of OP nor filed its written version and in interest of justice, case was adjourned to 13.08.2021. On 13.08.2021 neither none has appeared on behalf of OP nor filed its written version after availing several opportunities including last nine opportunities. Hence, OP was proceeded against exparte, vide order of this Commission.

5.             Complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Purshotam Bansal Ex.CW1/A, photographs of damage wooden Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, tax invoice of Rs.9440/- Ex.C4, GST certificate of complainant Ex.C5, valuation of home Ex.C6, Municipal Corporation House tax Ex.C7, Aadhar card of Raj Rani prop. Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 06.10.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.               In additional evidence complainant has tendered affidavit of Sanjay Kumar Ex.C9, assessment report given by Sanjay Kumar Carpenter Ex.C10, copy of Aadhar card of Sanjay Kumar Ex.C11 and closed the additional evidence on 22.02.2022.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant argued that complainant in January, 2018 the complainant did some wooden work in her house and  spent approximately Rs.2,50,000/-.  For the safety of wooden work, the complainant decided to get it termite secured by taking the services of the OP which is doing anti-termite treatment service. On 24.07.2018, the complainant called the OP to do anti-termite treatment in the wooden portion, the OP had charged Rs.9440/-and had given four years termite warranty to prevent attacks by subterranean termites and had given a complete surety that the expensive wooden work got done by the complainant will not get damage for the next four. He further argued that after six months only, termites became very much visible on the wooden work as well as sides of the wooden work as the passage of the termites appeared around the walls near the wooden work, on which complainant called the OP to look over the matter. The OP sent a concerned person for the cure of the problem occurred and again they have put termite medicines inside the wooden work.  But it was of no use, because the termites again appeared on the wooden work after a period of few days but OP did not nothing into the matter and due to this reason, the entire wooden work of the complainant’s house has been damaged. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             To prove his version complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, photographs Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, on observing the said photographs, the termite is visible clearly. Further, to prove his version complainant has placed on record documents Ex.C4 to Ex.C8. Complainant has also placed on record assessment report of carpenter Sanjay Kumar Ex.C10 supported by his affidavit Ex.C9 alongwith his Aadhar Card Ex.C11. In his report, Sanjay Kumar stated that he examined the carpenter job in house no.2052, Sector-13 Urban Estate, Karnal which has been badly destroyed by the termite. He can renovate this job and the cost of this job is approximately Rs.1,80,000/- alongwith labour and raw material.  

10.           To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant OP did not appear and proceeded against exparte. Hence, the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It has been proved from the evidence lead by the complainant, complainant has suffered a loss. 

11.           As such due to supply of low quality of termite medicines put inside the wooden work complainant has suffered a loss. Thus, we are of the considered view that the act of OP amounts to deficient in service. Hence, OP should be burdened for the damaged suffered by complainant. To meet out the end of justice, we hereby burdened to OP with the compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith Rs.9440/- which has been charged by the OP at the time of taking anti-termite treatment.

12.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.9440/- to the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the abovesaid amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of announcement of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:08.03.2022     

 

                                                               

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)       

                     Member