FRONTIER PEST CONTROL LIMITED Vs. PARDEEP MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the O.P. against order dated 19.11.2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 782 of 2007.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the complainant had entered into an agreement with the O.P. to give Anti -Termite Treatment for the protection of his house from termite. The complainant had paid Rs.5,000 for the above said treatment and assured the complainant that after treatment, the work would be entirely safe for five years. In pursuance of the said agreement, the O.P. completed the process of Anti -Termite Treatment in the house of the complainant and undertook that in case termite reappear before March, 2008 the O.P. would repeat the said process/ treatment of the affected portion in the said premises without further payment of any amount as per letter dated 18.4.2003. It was alleged by the complainant that the termites appeared and reappeared time and again in the house of the complainant and the complainant made many requests on telephone as well as visited the premises of the O.P. for providing treatment to termites but the O.P. did not care at all. Due to this act of the OP, the wooden frames in the house of the complainant had been badly damaged by the termites and the O.P. failed to use the proper and effective medicines for the treatment of termites. The O.P. had given the treatment three four times but it had no effect and the O.P. was failed to provide satisfactory service to the complainant and as such deficient services were given to the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice dated 16.11.2006 to the O.P. but the O.P. did not care to do the needful. The abovesaid act of O.P. amounts to deficiency in service and hence, the complaint was filed.

(3.) NOTICE served upon O.P. but despite notice, nobody appeared on its behalf. Hence, O.P. was proceeded against ex parte.