FRONTIER PEST CONTROL LTD Vs. PARDEEP MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 14.10.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh ("State Commission" for short) by which the State Commission upheld the order dated 19.11.2007 passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint No.782/2007 and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

(2.) Briefly stated, the complainant who is, respondent herein, had entered into an agreement with the petitioner/OP to give anti-termite treatment for the protection of his house from termite. The complainant had paid Rs.5,000/- for this treatment and he was assured by the OP that after the treatment, the house would be safe from termite infestation for five years. In pursuance of the said agreement, the petitioner completed the process of anti-termite treatment in the house of the respondent and undertook that in case the termite reappeared before March, 2008, the petitioner would repeat the said process/treatment of the affected portion of the said premises without further payment of any amount as per letter dated 18.4.2003. It was alleged by the respondent that the termite reappeared in the house during the period mentioned in the agreement and the respondent/complainant made many requests on telephone as well as through visits to the petitioner for providing treatment against the termite but even though the petitioner gave treatment 3-4 times but it did not have any effect on the termite infestation. Because of the failure of the petitioner to provide satisfactory service to the respondent, the wooden frames in the house of the respondent got badly damaged by termite infestation. In view of this, respondent sent a legal notice dated 16.11.2006 to the petitioner but the petitioner failed to do the needful.

(3.) Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, the respondent lodged a complaint with the District Forum in this regard. In spite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and hence the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte by the District Forum. The complainant led his evidence in support of his contentions.