DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2024
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 17/11/2021
CC/198/2021
Abdul Razak,
S/o. Abdul Salam,
437, “Iyyachus”, Friends Avenue,
Pudupariyaram Post,
Palakkad – 678 731 - Complainant
(By Adv. S.M. Unnikrishnan)
Vs
- Abdul Kabeer,
Abudhabi Traders,
Abudhabi Complex,
Near HPO, Puthur Road,
Koppam, Palakkad – 678 001
- Indigo Paints Ltd.,
Street 5, Pallode Farms II,
Baner, Pune, Maharashtra – 411 045 - Opposite parties
(O.P.1 by Adv. Santhosh T,
O.P. 2 by Adv. M/s. V G Niran & Suvarna Lekha)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Quintessential complaint pleadings are that the complainant purchased paints manufactured by the 2nd OP from the 1st OP for applying over 3000 sqft. of interlocking tiles. Subsequent to application, the paint started peeling off. Even after repeated requests, the OPs have failed to rectify the defects. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of OPs, this complaint is filed.
- The first OP failed to file version. OP2 filed version objecting complaint pleadings. They alleged that they have no occasion whatsoever to inspect the premises/ interlocking tiles of the complainant and that the peeling off occurred since the paint was not applied as advised by the O.P. They sought for dismissal of the complaint.
- The following issues were framed for consideration:
- Whether the complainant has successfully proved that the paint is of inferior quality?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
- Any other reliefs?
Additional Issue
- Whether the complainant has failed to follow the instructions on the container while painting the floor, which resulted in the peeling of paint?
4. (i) Complainants’ evidence comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A8. Even though permission was granted to the opposite parties to cross examine the complainant, they failed to cross examine the complainant. The 2nd OP filed a belated application after taking the case for orders seeking to reopen evidence to cross examine the complainant. This application was rejected.
(ii) OP2 filed proof affidavit and Exts. B1 & B2 were marked.
Issue No.1
5. The brief grievance of the complainant is that the paint that he purchased for painting the interlocking tiles around his house was of inferior quality and started peeling off within few months of purchase and application. It is aggrieved by this peeling off and alleged discolouration that this complaint is filed. Even though the staff of OP1 and 2 visited and inspected the complainant’s premises, they failed to carry out the rectification works.
6. The OP2 has objected to the contentions raised by the complainant and stated the defects alleged occurred as the quantity that was purchased was not enough to cover 3000 sqft.
7. Evidence on the part of the complainant comprised of Ext.A1 to A8. Ext.A1 to A7 are invoices. Since purchase is not denied, they need not be taken into consideration at this stage. Ext.A8 is a communication issued by the complainant in the email ID of the 2nd OP seeking intervention into the complaints raised by him.
8. In view of the objections raised by the OPs it was the bounden duty of the complainant to adduce evidence to prove that the paintings were of defective quality and that the same was applied as recommended by the O.P.2. The complainant has failed to take out an expert commissioner and prove before this Commission that the quality and application of paint was defective.
9. Thus, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove the painting is defective and the paint is of inferior quality.
Additional issue No.5
10. In view of the findings in issue No.1, this issue need not be discussed.
Issue Nos. 2 to 4
11. We hold that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
12. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.
13. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed. Considering the facts sand circumstances of the case parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 21st day of March, 2024.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Copy of tax invoice dated 17/3/2021
Ext.A2 – Copy of tax invoice dated 19/3/2021
Ext.A3 - Copy of tax invoice dated 22/3/2021
Ext.A4 - Copy of tax invoice dated 24/3/2021
Ext.A5 – Copy of tax invoice dated 26/3/2021
Ext. A6 – Copy of tax invoice dated 27/3/2021
Ext.A7 - Copy of tax invoice dated 29/3/2021
Ext.A8 - Copy of e mail communication dated 4/10/2021
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1 – Original brochure
Ext.B2 - Original list of platinum series of colours
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
