State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahavir S/O.Uttamchand Lohade vs 1. Ajeet S. Dube on 23 January, 2015
1 F.A. No. 465-11
MAHARASTHRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Date of filing:13.08.2010
Date of Order:
23.01.2015
FIRST APPEAL NO.465 OF 2011
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.42 OF 2010
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: JALNA
Mahavir s/o.Uttamchand Lohade
R/o. House No.1-7-169,170,
Copalpura, Jalna. ... Appellant
VERSUS
1. Ajeet S. Dube
Director of M/s. Sai Abhishek
Herbal Pest Control,
R/o. Flt No.1, Laxmi Niwas,
Shramik Society, Gangapur Road,
Nashik-5.
2. Mr. Pramod Pawase
Director of M/s. Sai Abhishek
Herbal Pest Control,
M-5, Arihant Nagar, Near Jain Mandir,
Jawahar Colony Road, Aurangabad. ... Respondents
Coram : Shri. S.M. Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member Present: Adv. Shri.S. T. Agrawal for appellant.
Adv. Shri. H. A. Nawab for respondent.
- :: ORAL JUDGMENT :: -
Per Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member (Delivered on 23rd January, 2015)
1. Mahavir Uttmchand Lohade resident of Jalna appellant herein/original complainant preferred this appeal challenging the 2 judgment and order of District Forum, Jalna on 29.06.2010, partly allowing consumer complaint No.42/2010.
2. Facts in nutshell are as under:
Complainant had availed the service for pest control from respondent no.1 Shri. Ajit S. Dube, Director of M/s. Sai Abhishek Herbal Pest Control, Nashik and respondent no.2 Shri. Pramod Pawase, Aurangbad. On 08.07.2008 complainant got the herbal pest control in his house. At that time respondents recovered Rs.9400/- for the said service and after the service, certificate was issued by the respondent on 08.07.2008 to the effect that "our organization will give five years warranty from the date of warranty for pest control service." It is stated by the complainant that even then it was revealed by the complainant that there is effect of termite on the door and windows. Therefore complainant informed the said fact to respondent no.2. Therefore they again made pest control. But immediately within a month the termite were found on the doors and windows. Therefore near about all doors were found affected by the said termite. Therefore complainant approached to Forum by claiming refund of Rs.9400/-, Rs.3,66,000/- for the loss of doors and windows, Rs.1,20,000/- for the mental agony and Rs.2000/- for the cost of complaint.
3. Respondent appeared before Forum and resisted the complaint on the ground that they did not make pest control to the doors and windows but it was applied to construction that means walls of the house, and therefore for the damage of the doors and windows respondents are not at all liable. District Forum appointed the commissioner to inspect the house and submit his report. Accordingly Adv. Shri. G. R. Kad appointed as Court Commissioner and after inspection of the said house he submitted 3 F.A. No. 465-11 his report on 10.06.2010. According to said report door of toilet and one window was only found affected by the termite. By relying on said report District Forum partly allowed complaint and directed respondent nos. 1 &
2 to pay Rs.2000/- for the damages, Rs.2000/- as a refund of pest control amount and Rs.1000/- for cost of the complaint.
4. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order original complainant came in appeal. Adv. Shri.S. T. Agrawal appeared for appellant. Adv. Shri. H. A. Nawab appeared for respondent. It is submitted by Adv. Agrawal that after the pest control certificate was issued by respondent and as per said certificate warranty of five years in respect of pest control service was given by the respondent. But it was found by the complainant that within 3-4 months the termite had affected all doors and windows of his house. Therefore he approached to respondent and they again made pest control. This means they accepted their deficiency in service. It is further submitted by Adv. Agrawal that District Forum appointed commissioner and his report was objected by the appellant. But District Forum without deciding his objection proceeded in the complaint and without considering the facts and evidence in proper perspective granted the meager amount of compensation. Hence appeal be allowed by allowing complaint in toto.
5. Adv. Shri. Nawab appeared for respondent submitted that in fact appellant approached to respondents for doing the pest control to construction of his house. Accordingly receipt dated 09.07.2008 was issued, wherein it is clearly mentioned that "Anti termite treatment for Construction" and it is not the case of complainant that termite was affected on the construction. It is further submitted by Adv. Nawab that after appointment of Commissioner and as per report of Commissioner 4 District Forum rightly held that one door and one window was only affected. Therefore District Forum rightly granted and order was also complied to deposit the said amount in the District Forum. Therefore appeal be dismissed by dismissing the complaint.
6. We thus heard both the counsel. It is the case of the complainant that warranty of pest control of five years was given by the respondents, but termite was affected to the windows and doors immediately after 3-4 months. Appellant though objected to report of Commissioner, did not produce any expert evidence to substantiate his claim. In our view, District Forum therefore rightly relied on the report of Commissioner while granting the compensation. In absence of any expenses about damages caused to the complainant due to defective service of the respondent, complaint cannot be allowed. Hence appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.
(Mrs. Uma S. Bora) (S.M. Shembole)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar