Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/973/2019

Arun Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tricity Kennels Dog Hostel, Clinic and Grooming Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Dharam Bir Bhargav Adv.

10 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	973 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	24.09.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	10.01.2023

 

 

 

 

Arun Kumar Sharma s/o Sh.Madan Lal Sharma, aged about 59 years, Resident of House No.276, First Floor, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh.   

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Tricity Kennels Dog Hostel, Clinic and Grooming Centre, H.No.375, Kochhar Farm, Shastri Nagar, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh 160101

2]  Dr.J.C.Kochhar, MSACP (HVS) Retd., Pet Mart Clinic, House No.1155, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh.

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                    MR.B.M.SHARMA                      MEMBER

                                                        

 

 

Argued by :- Sh.Dharam Bir Bhargav & Sh.Kulwinder Bhargav, Advocates for complainants.

            Sh.Sandeep Khunger & Sh.Saksham Khunger, Advocates for OPs.

 

PER  B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Concisely put, the complainant alongwith his family visited Shirdi Sai Baba Temple and as such remained away from 25^th to 31^st Aug., 2019 and during this one week period, he handed over his Dog namely Fluffy with OP Hostel (Tricity Kennels Dog Hostel).  It is stated that at the time of leaving the dog at OP Hostel, the dog was healthy, playful and not suffering from any health issue or skin disorder. However, after his return, when complainant collected his dog Fluffy from OP Hostel, he was surprised to see that there was Maggot hole in the dog’s paw, large maggot -hole in the neck and the dog was in a very bad condition at that time.  When the complainant enquired about this from OPs, the OP No.2 said that the dog is suffering and the same will be treated by him. The complainant also paid Rs.1400/- to OPs towards medicine bill (Ann.C-5 & C-6).  It is submitted that thereafter the complainant got treated his dog fluffy from a private veterinary hospital on which he had to spend hefty sum.  It is also submitted that due to the deficient act & conduct of the OPs as well as carelessness, the complainant’s dog suffered from said medical problem, as a result, the complainant has also to suffer mental agony, harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The OPs have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the dog namely Fluffy was admitted to Hostel of answering OP No.1 by one Mr.Robin Sharma for the alleged period and the Dog from the oral observation seemed to be fit.  It is submitted that after the Dog was left at the premises of answering OP on 24.8.2019, the Dog was well fed as per its dietary requirements for 4 days upto 27.8.2019; daily diagnostic chart is prepared for every Dog including the Dog in question.  It is submitted that on 28.8.2019, the attending Doctor of the Dogs informed the Management of answering OP NO.1 that the Dog in question has developed a maggot wound in its paw, which needs urgent medical attention and accordingly, the Mr.Robin Sharma, who left the dog, was informed on his mobile and he requested the attending Doctor at the Hostel premises to give best medical treatment to his Dog to cure it of its wound and agreed to make payment on arrival.  It is pleaded that due treatment was provided to the Dog in question taking into consideration the instruction of Sh.Robin Sharma. The treatment of the Dog was continued till 31.8.2019.  However, Mr.Robin Sharma came back on 31.8.2019 and deliberately picked-up a fight with the Doctor and took his Dog from the Hostel.  It is pleaded that the complainant did not place on record any ownership of the Dog in question nor any proof of treatment of Dog allegedly taken from private veterinary hospital. It is submitted that the complainant is trying to portray that the maggot wound on the dog was some life threatening disease whereas the dog in question was treated with some minor treatment given by OP No.2 on 31.8.2019.  It is also submitted that the dog was never got treated after 31.8.2019 and the complainant is trying to manufacture some fabricated evidence in support of his case.  It is stated that the dog was not clinically examined at the time of admission to Hostel and a maggot wound with which the dog in question was infected cannot develop overnight.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         OP No.2 has also filed reply stating that answering OP is not the owner of the Hostel in question.  It is submitted that the complainant came to the clinic of answering OP on 31.8.2019 with dog named Fluffy for consultation & treatment of the wound of the dog and after examination, the answering OP advised the complainant that though the wound is almost treated with the kind of treatment given to the dog, the answering OP applied antiseptic to the wound after trimming hair encircling the wound along with an injection.  The answering OP advised the complainant that the wound is treated and he only needs to take care that the proper hygiene of the dog is maintained to avoid any infection. It is denied that answering OP ever charged anything from the complainant on 31.8.2019.  Denying other allegations of complaint, the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby controverting the assertions made by OP NO.1 in its reply.  

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and gone through entire record including written augments.

6]       The thorough perusal of the record reveals that the complainant has not denied that his dog (Fluffy) while remained with OP No.1 Hostel between the periods from 24.8.2019 to 31.8.2019 was treated when found developed a maggot wound in its paw. 

7]       Although the complainant averred in his complaint that after picking the dog on 31.8.2019 from OP No.1 & treated the dog privately and spend huge amount on it, but he failed to brought on record any documentary evidence in the shape of medical bills, prescription & treatment chart etc., to prove the said fact even after being asked for & requested by the Bench. Therefore, such averment of complainant cannot be considered. 

8]       From Ann.OP-4 (Preventing ticks on your pets), it is clear that signs of tickborne disease in dogs may not appear for 7-21 or longer after a tick bite. Therefore, the possibility that the Dog of the complainant before handing over to OP No.1 Hostel had already been bitten by a tick, cannot be ruled out. The tick bites or maggots in dogs are common. The complainant failed to establish that maggot or tick bites in dogs are life threatening and it cannot develop in & around house atmosphere. Thus, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs.    

9]       Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service is made out against the OPs. Therefore, the present complaint being without merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned. 

Announced                                                     

10^th January, 2023                           

                                                                Sd/-

(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER