Haryana

Karnal

349/2013

Sarjiv Virg S/o Pishori Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aasiya Paint Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Hemant Sharma

19 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.349 of 2013

                                                          Date of instt.: 8.8.2013

                                                          Date of decision: 20.01.2016

 

Sarjeev Vig son of Shri Pishori Lal resident of house no. 929, Sector 9, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

.                                                                   ……..Complainants  

                                      Vs.

1.Asian Paints Limited, Asian Paints House, 6-A, Shanti Nagar, Shanta Kunj East Mumbai 4000055.

2.Bombay Paints and Lime Store, near Kalandhari Gate, Karnal.

 

                                                                           ……… Opposite Parties

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.                

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh.Hemaant Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the Opposite Parties

ORDER:                 

                                   

                  This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that in the year 2009-2010 he got his house painted from inside and outside.  In January 2010, he got painted the outer walls and roof( Khaprail) with Apex Ultima paint. After about one and a half year, cracks appeared on the walls and the paint started pealing off from the khaprail whereas Asian Paints company limited had given guarantee for seven years.  He made complaint to Bombay Paints Karnal , the dealer  of Asian Paints, from whom he had purchased Apex Ultima and other articles, but he did not give any satisfactory reply and only assured that he would talk to the Officers of Asian Paints Company. After some time the cracks on the walls became prominent and Apex ultima peeled off to large extent from the khaprail. Therefore, he again approached the owner of Bombay  Paints  and on that the complaint was  sent  through E-mail to Asian Paints Company on 14.3.2013. Thereafter on 23.3.2013, Manish Official of the company visited his house and offered to give 10 litres Apex Ultima, which was not accepted by him. He then sent E-mail on 16.5.2013 and again on 16.6.2013.  Then Mr. Devesh  inspected his house on 21.6.2013 and after few days Mr,.Arun

 

offered 40 litres  Ultima paint to him, which was not sufficient, because in getting painted his house 20 bags of putty, 40/50 litres  premier and 120 liter Apex ultima were used and an amount of Rs.75000/- was spent as labour charges. Even  40 litres of Ultima Paint was not given to him. Asian Paints limited had sent a letter to him, wherein it was wrongly mentioned that paint was got done three years back and  cracks developed in the last three months, whereas the complaint was being made to the dealer after about one and a half year back. On account of acts and conduct of the Opposite Parties, his entire family suffered mental harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite parties.  Opposite Party no.1 filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is time barred; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint is false and vexacious.

                   On merits, it has been denied that the complainant got his house painted with Apex Ultima Asian Paints. It has been submitted that paint products are strictly to be used upon walls and not on Khaprail. The warranty of seven years offered by the Opposite Party no.1 is subject to some conditions clearly mentioned in the warranty card. The said warranty must be registered  to be claimed but the complainant  has no where mentioned about registration of the warranty claim by him. In the warranty card, it is specifically mentioned that paint is to be used on wall surfaces. The complainant has also failed to state the  procedure of application of the paint products to his house used by him.   The  problem of painting was not related to the quality of product but surface where the paint was applied.  The complainant was even offered ten litres  of paint as goodwill gesture by the  representative of the Opposite  Party No.1 which was not accepted by him. The Opposite Party no.1 visited the site of the complainant and categorically  communicated to him  upon inspection that there were lot of cracks in the substrate  condition  was not  proper.  The plaster work and putty work was not done properly. There was no defect in the paint. The complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically.

 

3.                 The Opposite Party no.2 did not file any separate written statement and adopted the written statement filed by Opposite Party no.1.

 

4.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 have been tendered.

5.                 On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties, affidavit of Shri Sahil Dhussa Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 have been tendered.

6.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

7.                 As per the case of the complainant, he got his house painted from inside and outside with Asian Paints in the year 2009-2010. Cracks developed in the paint of the outer walls and some paint started peeling off  from roof khaprail after one and a half  year. He made complaint to Opposite Party no.2.  Dealer and officials of Opposite party no.2 visited  his house but  initially 10 litres paint was offered, which he refused to accept and thereafter they  offered 40 litres, but  the same was not given. It has further been alleged that he got his outer walls and khaprail  painted again  and for that purpose 20 bags of putty, 40/50 litres premier and  20 litres  of Apex Ultima were  used and spent Rs.75000/- on labour charges.

8.                 It is worth pointing out at the very outset that Opposite Party No.2 has not disputed the fact that the complainant had purchased Apex Ultima Asian paint alongwith premier and wall putty  from him.  Ex.C2 shows that 120 litres Apex Ultima  Asian paint, 50 litres exterior premium Asian and 20 bags of putty of Asian paints were purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party no.2 in January, 2010. The letter  Ex.C6 and Ex.C10 show that the Opposite Parties  impliedly admitted that the complainant had used the said wall putty, premier and paint for getting painted his house. The complainant had made complaints to the Opposite Parties  and in response thereto inspection was done by the representatives of Opposite Party No.1 on 23.3.2013  and 26.10.2013. It was   observed that there were cracks on the walls of the site; that paint film alongwith under coats was scraped off  at some places. It was further  observed  that there were cracks on the surface and the same were on the walls i.e. structural cracks and that paint peeling off was observed on the roof tiles where Apex Ultima was applied.  On the basis of the said observation Opposite Party no.1 concluded that cracks observed on the walls were structural cracks could not be filled by applying paint film.  The cracks were not due to paint, but due to surface condition of the site and peeling  off the paint from on the roof was due  to improper application by  Painter. However, in the said letters, it was  also mentioned that Apex Ultima was offered to the complainant purely as a goodwill gesture and business decorum but he refused to accept the same.

9.                 From the aforediscussed evidence, it is clear that there were cracks in the paint of the outer walls of the house of the complainant. Thus, the question arises whether all the cracks on the walls were due to surface condition/structural cracks  or were on account of improper application by the painter or any defect in the paint. The Opposite Parties   have produced some  photographs of the site, which show that there are some structural cracks .  It cannot be disputed that due to these structural cracks some cracks might have appeared on the paint film in the surrounding area.  However, there is no material on record on the basis of which it can be said that that all the cracks in the  paint film on the outer walls of the house were due to structural cracks. The Opposite Party  No.1 has produced only three photographs of the structural cracks, but the same are not sufficient to prove that all the cracks in the paint film were due to  these structural cracks. The complainant has also produced photograph Ex.C11, which clearly shows that in the portion of the said wall, there was no structural crack and the cracks in the paint film were quite apparent.  The Opposite Parties  have not produced even the affidavit of their representatives, who had inspected the site to prove that the  paint was not properly applied on the walls and that all the  cracks in the paint film were due to structural cracks.

10.               In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we arrive at the conclusion  that some cracks in the paint film on the wall surface could appear due to structural cracks,  but in some portion of the walls the cracks had developed  in paint film itself without any structural cracks. The complainant  had used wall putty as well as premier  before applying the paint on the walls and there is no evidence which may show that application of the paint was not proper and against the recommendations   of the Opposite Party No.1.

11.               Admittedly, the representative of Oppoiste Party no.1 found that on some portion of the roof of khaprail paint had peeled off.The letter Ex.R2 /Ex.C6 shows that peeling off roof was observed because the painter applied Apex Ulitma on the tile guard which is not recommended. The complainant could not produce any material to prove  that Apex Ultima could be applied on the tile guard of the khapraill. Therefore, even if, paint peeled off at some places from the tile guard of the khaprail, then also it cannot be said that paint was defective or there was any deficiency in services on the part of the Oppoiste Parties in that regard.

12.               As per the case of the complainant he had used 20 bags of putty, 40-50 litres premier and 120 litres Apex Ulitma for getting outer walls and Khaprail  painted and spent an amount of Rs.75000/- on labour charges. The complainant has produced bills Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 issued by Opposite Party no.2 and Ex.C5 issued by  Chaman Lal Anil Kumar. According to these bills, he purchased Apex colour exterior premier, putty and jolt excell for total amount of Rs.21725/-  He has not produced any bill regarding payment of labour charges but this fact cannot lost sight of that some amount must have been spent by the complainant on labour charges for getting  painted  the walls and khaprail.

 

13.               It is established from the aforediscussed evidence that  some cracks in the outer walls were due to structural cracks whereas the other cracks were in the paint film. Regarding the cracks in the paint film which were on account of structural cracks, there was certainly no deficiency in services on the part of the Oppoiste Parties. However, regarding the other cracks in the paint film  on the walls, it can very well be said that such cracks were due to some defect in the paint. The Opposity Party no.1  neither got the said walls painted, nor supplied sufficient quantity of paint to the compllainant for that purpose, therefore, there was deficiency in services on its part.  Apex Ultima was not recommended by the Opposite Party no.1  for applying  on the tile guard.  Therefore,   looking into all these facts and circumstances of the case the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.15000/- as cost of the paint and putty etc. and  Rs.15000/- for labour charges.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses.The Opposite Parties shall  make the complliance of this order  within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due complaince.

 

Announced
dated:20.01.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.Hemaant Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

                  

                     Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:20.01.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.