The court established that the ineffectiveness of the termite treatment provided by the respondent constituted a deficiency in service, entitling the appellant to compensation.

Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President—The complaint of the appellant seeking refund of Rs. 6,000/- and compensation of Rs. 22,000/- on account of deficiency in service in not providing the termite treatment of good quality was dismissed vide impugned order dated 9.9.2002 passed by District Forum.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. The case of the appellant in brief is that on 13.12.1997 he entered into 5 years contract with the respondent company for termite treatment of his residence and paid Rs. 6,000/- vide receipt dated 15.12.1997. As per agreement, the respondent was to conduct one major treatment followed by one routine checkup every year. The respondent also assured the appellant that termite treatment would be so effective that there would be no problem of termites. However, the treatment was not effective as the appellant approached the respondent time and again and as many as seven complaints were made in the period of 20 months.

3. As against this, the case of the respondent is that agreement was entered into between the parties on 15.12.1997 and not on 13.12.1997 and as per the terms of contract, the respondent was to render treatment as and when recurrence of termite was reported by the appellant and in the instant case, the recurrence was reported time and again because of the seepage and moisture in the walls and floor and the appellant was advised to first remove the seepage and moisture so as to make the treatment effective and worthwhile.

4. There is no dispute that the appellant complained to respondent on seven occasions about ineffective treatment and the respondent visited the premises of the appellant on all same occasions and provided termite treatment.

5. As regards the dispute with regard to the date of agreement, it is of no relevance in the instant case as the receipt dated 15.12.1997 shows that the parties had agreed for this contract on 13.12.1997. Even otherwise the terms of the agreement dated 13.12.1997 and 15.12.1997 are not at variance. Be that as it may, we find that the very fact that the respondent had to be approached time and again and as many as 7 times during the period of 20 months shows that the treatment provided by the respondent was not satisfactory and this definitely amounts to deficiency in service. The appellant is entitled for compensation though not for the refund of amount he had paid to the respondent as the respondent had admittedly given treatment of termite as many as 7 times. May be that treatment was not effective due to seepage or of moisture but it was for the respondent to see at first instance whether the treatment having been given would be effective or not in the premises having seepage or moisture in the walls and for this lapse on the part of the respondent, the appellant cannot be held responsible or penalized. It was for the respondent to ensure the effectiveness of the treatment in the given situation.

6. Taking overall view of the matter, we allow the appeal and deem that compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on account of deficiency in service on the part of respondent besides Rs. 1,000/- towards the cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice.

A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties, free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Appeal allowed.

–