Haryana

StateCommission

A/391/2021

ASIAN PAINTS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AJAY ARYA AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

TAPISH KUMAR

10 Jun 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.391 of 2021

                                                 Date of Institution: 17.12.2021

                                                               Date of Decision: 10.06.2022

Asian Paints Limited 6-A, Shanti Nagar,  Santacruz (E) Mumbai 400055 (Maharashtra) through its authorized signatory/Power of Attorney Holder namely Anand Dwivedi S/o S.M.Dwivedi aged about 36 yeas having office at Ambala.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Ajay Arya S/o Sh.Babu Ram Arya, R/o H.No.311, Luxmi Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, Mobile No.9466610267.

 

2. Goel Paints and Hardware near Deha Basti, Bilaspur,Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar, through its prop/Authorized signatory (Authorized dealer of Asian Paints Ltd.).                                                                                                                                                                              

…..Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. Tapish Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.391 of 2021 has been filed against the order dated 25.03.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.155 of 2021, which was partly accepted.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased  Melamyne sealer, thinner, Colour, Gloss and hardener from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No.55  dated 17.08.2019 and invoice No.85  dated 28.10.2019 for Rs.33,671/- and  Rs.23978/- respectively.  The contractor Dhananjay Kumar applied first coat of sealer on all wooden product on ground floor.  The problem with the application of Melamyne started during the second coat of sealer. The sealer started coming off the wood in the form of a peel. A complaint was registered by him with OP No.2 vide complaint No.0505370264 on 18.12.2019. The employee of the company visited the site and made efforts to resolve the problem, but, to no avail.  He again  contacted to the customer care of OP NO.2 and communicated his grievances, but, nobody visited the site.  He purchased PU polish worth Rs.43000/- from sunbeam paints & Hardware on 04.02.2022 to apply on front wooden doors and window after applying paint remover to remove the defective melamyne.  The OPs have sold defective products to him and despite repeated requests and representations made by him, the OPs did nothing in this regard and thereafter they flatly refused to redress the problem of the complainant. The OPs were liable to pay an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- (mentioned in the complaint) to him as compensation. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      OPs were proceeded against ex parte on 21.09.2020.

4.      After hearing complainant in person, the learned District Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri has partly allowed the complaint vide order dated 25.03.2021. Relevant para is reproduced below:-

“Complaint is, partly, accepted against  the respondents holding them jointly and severally liable to make payment of compensation in the sum of Rs.57649/- being the cost of product as per invoice No.55 Ex. C-2 and invoice No.85 Ex.C-3 plus Rs.25000/- as punitive damages in all heads, such as mental agony, harassment, financial loss, litigation expenses etc. The respondents are directed to make payment of total amount of Rs.82649/- within the period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.No.2-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      This argument has been advanced by Sh.Tapish Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant. With his kind assistance the entire records including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that upon complaint, appellant’s representative Mr. Jaspreet Singh visited the site of complainant house and made sincere efforts to resolve the problem by applying new Melamyne sealer.  The complainant has intentionally suppressed the material fact that appellant company had already compensated the complainant/respondent No.1 with 20 liters of Melamyne sealer and 20 litres of thinner and complaint was closed to his satisfaction. Learned District Commission failed to examine any technical report or any expert opinion why allthis has happened and the complainant also failed to produce any such report or opinion and could only produce the invoices which does not constitute any deficiency in services. 

8.      Since the representative of the company visited the site of complainant to resolve the problem, but, ultimately expressed his inability by saying that the product of the company which were applied during the first coat, were defective.  Since, the coat of the melamine sealer on the wood was defective, the complainant was not able to repeat the process again.   Annexure A-5 dated 18.02.2020 complaint visit report shows the observations of the  representative that “there is peeling off in melamine sealer due to product defect in thinner 124. Did sampling in front of me as well.” The closure remarks of complaint visit report was that “after weedfrin technologist confirmed for product defect we have communicated the same to customer for giving compensation of drums. Since the complaint visit report shows that product was defective, the complainant is entitled for the compensation as prayed for.   Learned District Commission has rightly partly allowed the complaint against the OPs.

9.      Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence,  the appeal  stands dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.41,325/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondent No.1-Ajay Arya against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

10th  June, 2022     Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)