MAHAVIR Vs. AJEET S. DUBE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHAVIR Uttamchand Lohade resident of Jalna appellant herein/original complainant preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order of District Forum, Jalna on 29.6.2010, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 42/2010. Facts in nutshell are as under:

(2.) DISSATISFIED with the said judgment and order original complainant came in appeal. Advocate Mr. S.T. Agrawal appeared for appellant. Advocate Mr. H.A. Nawab appeared for respondent. It is submitted by Advocate 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 Advocate 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 meagre amount of compensation. Hence appeal be allowed by allowing complaint in toto.

(3.) ADVOCATE Mr. 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 9.7.2008 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 Advocate Nawab that after appointment of Commissioner and as per report of Commissioner 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. 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.