State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jai Durga Pest Control vs Satpal on 6 January, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA PANCHKULA First appeal No.469 of 2014 Date of the Institution: 10.06.2014 Date of Decision: 06.01.2015 Jai Durga Pest Control Head Office Opposite Paphia Park, Model Town, Fatehabad through its proprietor Bhiwani Singh S/o Vijay Singh R/o Village Boswal Tehsil and Distt. Fatehabad. ..Appellant Versus Satpal S/o Gulab R/o H.No.234, HUDA Sector 3 Fatehabad, Haryana. ..Respondent CORAM: Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member Present:- Mr.Kirti Kumar proxy counsel for Mr.Varun Katyal, Advocate counsel for the appellant. Mr.Kabir Chopra, Advocate counsel for the respondent. O R D E R
R.K.Bishnoi , JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 06 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.
The complainant availed the facility of anti-termite treatment from the appellant-opposite party against the payment of Rs.7000/-. It was promised by the opposite party to give service for five years with half yearly periodical checks. After sometime three door frame were damaged by the white ants. The opposite party alleged that the complainant did not make payment of Rs.7000/- and is not entitled for any relief.
After hearing both the parties the learned District Forum granted the following relief:-
It is well established on the case file that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and keeping in view the benevolent social legislation of the Consumer Protection Act because it aimed at to provide better protection of the interests of consumers, the ends of justice would be met if the opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- in lump sum as compensation on account of damage to the door frame, harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation.
Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite party has preferred this appeal.
Arguments heard. File perused.
The sole point involved in this appeal is whether complainant paid Rs.7000/- to the opposite party or not. It is admitted fact that the opposite party gave anti-termite treatment to the property of complainant. If complainant did not make any payment then why opposite party did not raise the demand for the same. There is no document on the file showing that the opposite party ever asked complainant to make the payment. Had the complainant not made the payment, the opposite party must have sent the notice or would have filed the suit for recovery. They have raised this plea for the first time when the complaint was filed against it. As per facts mentioned above their version is not believable. Nobody will sit calmly till the payment is made. So it can be safely presumed that the complainant made payment to the respondent as alleged in the complaint and the anti-termite treatment was to be provided as alleged therein. When the opposite party is not coming with the clean hands, it is not entitled for any relief. The findings of the learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.
Hence, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification.
January 06th, 2015 Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench