1. This is a petition filed by one Kamalaprasad Agarwal (hereinafter referred as the petitioner) against  M/S. Akzonobel India Ltd.  and one another (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) U/S/  12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other reliefs.
2. Fact and circumstances for filing of the aforesaid petition as narrated by the petitioner are as follows:-

                   The petitioner  is senior citizen looking after his family business, namely, M/S Machine Sales & Service, Haibargaon, Nagaon Assam and opposite party No.1 is the manufacturers of various types of Paints in different shades under renowned brand name of DUCO/DULUX which they market through network of Authorosed dealers in India while opposite party No.2 is the authorised dealer of their paints for the District of Nagaon having their business establishment at Haibargaon, Nagaon. Petitioner’s further case is that he purchased 3 litres of WEATHER COAT PRECIOUS TUSPER”( Code No. 10GY40/296) from the opposite party No.2 in the month of July/2016 but the same was defective. He stated that on use, it was found that it anyhow covered 2000 Sqft after two coated which consumed all the 3 litres purchased and even after that, it a depicted a shabby colour which was almost the same colour. Further case of the petitioner that he approached the opposite Party No.2 with the complain but the opposite Party No.2 asked the petitioner to approach the opposite party No.1 who is the manufacturer of the paint by saying that the defect was only of the manufacturer. The complainant also stated that he, thereafter, approach the opposite party No.1 being the manufacturer by a letter dated 16-08-2016 and in reply, he received a call from Mobile No.+911244852427 on 01-09-2016 and after many queries, he was told that the paint was prepared on a wrong base i.e.94 but should have been prepared in base No.95. The petitioner further stated that, thereafter, he received an e mail from the opposite party No.1 conforming the above telephonic conversation wherein the Opposite party No.1 shredded all the responsibility and directed the petitioner to discuss the matter with opposite Party No.2 and accordingly, he approached the opposite party No.2 vide registered letter dated 06-08-2016 with request to look into the matter and a satisfactory reply but even after 4 months elapsed, the opposite parties remained silent. Under the above premises, the petitioner prays for a direction from this forum to the opposite parties to refund Rs.1260/- with interest @24% from the date of payment of bill till payment, to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- for cost of litigation and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.

3.                    On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties did not appear and contested the proceeding by filing written statement.  Hence, the case proceeded exparte against the opposite parties.

4.                    In course of exparte hearing, the petitioner submitted his evidence in affidavit of himself and also exhibited  several documents.

5.                    I have heard the petitioner.

6.                    Perused the pleading and evidence on record.

7.                    On perusal of the evidence on record it appears that the petitioner as PW 1 has fully supported his petition and also exhibited A Photograph of the container wherein the paints was supplied by the opposite party No.2 Vide Ext.1,  photographs showing the result of the paint on the surface Vide Ext.2, 3 and 4, approach letter to opposite party No.1 as per advice of opposite party No.2 vide Ext.5 and postal receipt of the said registered letter vide Ext.6, e mail from Opposite party No.1 vide Ext.7, registered letter to opposite party No.2 vide Ext 8 and postal receipt of the said registered letter vide Ext.9 . He stated in his evidence that he purchased 3 litres of WEATHER COAT PRECIOUS TUSPER”( Code No. 10GY40/296) from the opposite party No.2 in three containers but the same was defective and after consuming the entire quantity of paint, it developed a shabby colour and even could not hide the existing paint.   Further evidence of the petitioner as P.W.1 is that he made a verbal complain to the opposite Party No.2 and they advised him to approach the opposite party No.1 who is the manufacturer of the paint and thereafter he,  approached the opposite party No.1 vide registered letter dated 16-08-2016 and then he received a call from their mobile and after certain queries, they came to the conclusion that the paint was prepared on a wrong base i.e.94 which should have been prepared in base No.95, which was letter-on confirmed by an e mail with a direction to the petitioner to contact the opposite Party No.2 in this regard and accordingly, he send a registered letter to the opposite party No.2 on 06-08-2016 but all in vein and after passing 8 months, the opposite parties did not response. Thus, I find that the petitioner has prima facie succeeded to establish that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  That being the position, I am constrained to hold at present that the prayer made by the petitioner seeking a direction to the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.1260/- with interest, the cost of litigation and some amount as compensation. is required to be granted.

8.                    Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner U/S  12 of the Consumer protection is allowed ex-parte. Issue direction to the opposite parties  to refund an amount of Rs.1260/- with interest @ 12 per annum from the date of payment of the bill until realisation, Rs 2500/- as the cost of litigation and an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousands) only as compensation to the petitioner forthwith.

                         Inform all the parties concern.

                        Given under the hand and seal of this forum, we signed and delivered this Judgment on this day of 3^rd Day of November 2020.