Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K. Sampath, President and Pon. Gunasekaran, Member
SOUTHERN EXPLOSIVES - Appellant
Versus
CENTURY PEST CONTROL SERVICES LTD. - Respondent
A.P. No. 510 of 2003
Decided on : 15-05-2007
termite - Consumer Protection - [Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(n) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(l) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(j) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(k) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(h) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly Section 2(1)(m) which defines 'complainant' and Section 2(1)(o) which defines 'consumer'. The court also referred to Section 2(1)(r) defining 'service' and Section 2(1)(g) defining 'deficiency'. The court analyzed the provisions of the Act in the context of the complainant's case and the opposite party's defense, highlighting the definitions of key terms and their interpretations in the context of the dispute. The court's decision was influenced by its interpretation of these provisions and their application to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant noticed termite attack in their office premises and engaged the opposite party for pest control. Despite assurances and a guarantee, the termite attack recurred, causing significant damage. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to prove the termite attack and the resulting damages. It also considered the guarantees and assurances provided by the opposite party, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the proof of termite attack, the adequacy of the opposite party's services, and the interpretation of the guarantees and assurances provided.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence for the termite attack and damages, as well as the interpretation of the guarantees and assurances provided by the opposite party.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding in favor of the opposite party.
ORDER
K. Sampath, President - The complainant in O.P. 624/99 on the file of District Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows:
2. In September 1998, the complainant noticed the presence of termite in some wooden cup boards in their office at No. 161-A Greams Road, Chennai-6 which was a then recently constructed 3 storeyed building with all modern facilities. The complainant had let out a portion in the ground floor to another Company and they were having their office there. The complainant after consulting experts, decided to spray anti-termite chemical in the affected area and also do such other treatments as advised by the pest/termite control experts. With a view to permanently eliminate termites, the complainant invited offer from several pest control concerns. The opposite party gave an estimate of Rs. 24,700 and assured that the complainant had to do complete spraying of pesticides on the walls, ceilings, fittings, furniture, flooring and other uncovered area in the premises. Termite attack would not relapse or be found again in any place in the premises. The complainant believing the words of the opposite party permitted them to carry out their work as desired and by spraying necessary pesticides and chemicals in the entire building. The opposite party after they completed their work, issued a certificate of guarantee for 5 years and assured the complainant that the premises would be safe from subterranean termite for a period of 5 years from 1.12.1998. The opposite party was paid Rs. 24,700 on 25.12.1998. On 16.2.1999, the complainant noticed termite attack in one of the cup-boards in the premises. The opposite party was informed by the complainant to repay the amount of Rs. 24,700 collected and also damages. The opposite party acknowledged the receipt of the letter, but failed to visit the premises of the complainant to prevent future recurrence. The complainant took all possible steps to reduce further damage and kept the undamaged files, books, etc. separately. The complainant noticed the attack of termite in some other areas including the floor, lofts, and the directors, cabins. The loss caused could be in the region of Rs. 1,50,000. The complainant called upon the opposite party by notice dated 27.5.99 to repay the entire amount collected and also pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakh by way of damages. Though the opposite party offered to do the needful, it failed to carry out any work in the premises and again on 8.7.1999 the termite had attacked and caused further damage. The opposite party had not done their work properly. They had not used proper chemicals. In the said circumstances, the complaint came to be filed.
3. The opposite party resisted the complaint contending inter alia as follows: The complaint was not maintainable: The complainant was not a person within the meaning of Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party never gave any promise that the termites would never attack a building after treatment and in the letter dated 7.11.1998, the opposite party clearly stated that it was impracticable to trace the colony in the soil and eliminate it. The opposite party promised in their letter dated 23.11.1998 that they could check up once in six months on payment of a sum of Rs. 500 and spray insecticides. Even in the guarantee letter, the opposite party informed that they would carry out such treatment as might be necessary at no extra cost. The complainant placed the order by their letter date 26.11.1998 and then only, the opposite party gave a letter of guarantee dated 1.12.1998. The complainant informed the opposite party over telephone about the appearance of termite on 16.2.1999 and immediately the service crew of the opposite party went to the premises of the complainant and administered treatment without charging any fee. Again, the opposite party attended the complaint on 25.2.1999 on receipt of letter dated 23.2.1999 from the complainant. It
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
