State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dilbag Singh vs Thanesar Presto Control Service on 15 February, 2018
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 56 of 2017 Date of Institution: 17.01.2017 Date of Decision : 15.02.2018 Dilbag Singh s/o Sh. Dharam Singh, Resident of House No.1049, Sector 4, Part-2, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Haryana. Appellant-Complainant Versus Thanesar Presto Control Service, Shop No.17, Geeta School Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana. Respondent-Opposite Party CORAM: Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Argued by: Appellant-Dilbag Singh in person. Respondent ex parte. O R D E R
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated October 13th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short 'the District Forum').
2. Thanesar Presto Control Service, Railway Road, Kurukshetra - Opposite Party (respondent herein) was engaged by Dilbag Singh - complainant (appellant herein) for spray/treatment from white ants (Deemak) in his residential house No.1049, Sector-4, Part-2, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra. The spray/treatment was done by the opposite party and an amount of Rs.9300/- was paid to the opposite party including labour work and the amount spent for Anti Termite Chemical etc. As per version of the complainant vide receipt dated July 10th, 2015 (Annexure C-1), the opposite party No.1 had given guarantee for a period of eight years. The terms and conditions of the guarantee were mentioned in the document dated July 10th, 2015 also (Annexure C-2). The complainant was assured that during warranty period if any white ants (Deemak) are found in the premises, the opposite party will be responsible for the same and in case of any damage caused to the complainant's house in future, the opposite party will be liable to pay cost of the total damage caused. It is also specifically mentioned in the guarantee card that the representative of the opposite party will visit the house of the complainant to check effect of white ants upon the doors and windows but the opposite party did not visit the house of the complainant despite repeated requests. The doors, frames, windows, almirahs and cupboards of the house of the complainant have been totally damaged and became useless due to effect of white ants. Keeping in view the guarantee card provided, the opposite party is liable to make payment regarding the total loss caused to the complainant. The complainant alleged that it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant on account of total loss caused to the complainant and on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.
4. Notice was served upon the opposite party-respondent but none appeared before the learned District Forum on behalf of the opposite party despite service and the opposite party was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated September 05th, 2016.
5. In his ex parte evidence, the complainant placed on the record duly attested affidavit and documents, Photostat copies of cash memo/bill Annexure C-1 and photo copy of warranty card Annexure C-2.
6. After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated October 13th, 2016, the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed by the learned District Forum directing the opposite party to make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within a period of two months with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till its realisation.
7. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated October 13th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant-complainant has filed the present First Appeal No.56 of 2017 with a prayer to modify the impugned order and to grant relief to the complainant as prayed in the complaint.
8. Notice of the appeal was sent to the respondent-opposite party. None appears on behalf of the respondent-opposite party on November 06th, 2016 despite service. In this way, the respondent-opposite party was proceeded against ex parte.
9. I have heard the appellant in person and perused the case file.
10. The opposite party did not appear in the proceedings of this complaint before the District Forum as well as in appeal proceedings pending before this Commission despite service to oppose this version of the complainant that the complainant got sprayed Anti Termite Chemical for prevention of white ants (Deemak) in his house bearing No.1049, Sector-4, Partg-2, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra and paid an amount of Rs.9300/- to the opposite party including labour charges and the amount spent for purchasing Anti Termite Chemical vide bill Annexure C-1. On the bottom of the bill Annexure C-1 it is mentioned that regarding treatment of white ants, guarantee period of eight years has been provided. The guarantee card Annexure C-2 is also placed on the file. It is mentioned that guarantee period has been provided as eight years but if there is moisture in the wall due to any reason and due to this reason the effect of white ants touches the nearby door frames etc, in that situation the opposite party shall not be responsible in any way. The complainant was also advised to provide treatment of Wood Termites Presto Killer Instal Kill with 50% medicine in the doors, windows, and fancy cupboards etc. Moreover, the treatment provided can be checked once within a period of six months. The customer is required to inform the opposite party telephonically if he noticed white ants.
11. Considering ex parte version of the appellant-complainant, learned District Forum directed the opposite party to make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It will be pertinent to mention here that regarding white ants treatment, the opposite party has already received an amount of Rs.9300/- including labour charges and Termite Chemical etc. needed for it. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of total loss caused to the complainant and on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. It will be pertinent to mention here that the complainant did not mention in clear words in his complaint or in any other document that how much construction is in existence over the plot owned by the complainant and what was the actual cost of the doors, windows, wooden cupboards and doors frames etc. Moreover, regarding visit of the opposite party, the complainant did not produce any evidence to prove that he informed the opposite party on a particular date for checking the treatment already provided by the opposite party in the house of the complainant.
12. Moreover, the complainant before claiming an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- should have made it clear in his complaint and by producing some documentary evidence that what was the actual cost of installation of windows, doors, wooden cupboards and doors frames etc in his house. Moreover, before claiming the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, the complainant also should have got assessed the total loss caused to him. After all, the doors, windows and frames etc are still in existence and the complainant is using doors, windows etc. as usual. Moreover, in the guarantee card also the opposite party has not given undertaking that the opposite party shall make payment of the total cost of the doors, windows etc to the complainant. It appears that the guarantee card was provided with this intention that in future if there appears to be effect of white ants in the house of the complainant, the opposite party shall provide treatment free of costs. Anyhow, considering all these circumstances, the learned District Forum has already awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of passing of the impugned order, which appears to be justified.
13. As a result as per discussions above in detail, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated October 13th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum. The complainant has already been granted adequate compensation. Hence, finding no merit in the appeal, the same stands dismissed.
Announced:
15.02.2018 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member CL