Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 454.
Instituted on : 24.08.2012.
Decided on : 08.06.2016.
Dharmender son of Sh. Kushal Singh, resident of village and Post office Nandal Teh. & Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Arihant Paints Agency, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- Birla Wall Putty, Ultra The. Cement, Unit Birla While Kharia Khangar, Distt. Jodhpur(Rajasthan) Pin 342606 through its Manager/Authorised person/Prop.
- Asian Paint Ltd., 6-A, Shanti Nagar, Shanta Kraz, East Mumbai, Pin 400055 through its Manager/Authorised person.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.A.K.Goel, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Anil Kumar, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
Sh.Kamal Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he purchased Birla wall putty and Asian Paints Primer on 16.05.2012 and 14.05.2012 and 15.05.2012 and on other dates worth Rs.100000/- from the opposite party No.1 for the purpose of doing wall putty and paints to his newly constructed house. It is averred that opposite party no.1 issued receipts of worth Rs.16095/- on 14.5.2012, Rs.23769/-on 15.05.2012 and assured the complainant to supply the remaining receipts in future and kept off the same on one pretext or other and till date has not supplied the same. It is averred that complainant incurred an amount of Rs.50000/- on labour for doing the work of wall putty and paints and Rs.30000/- on other material. It is averred that after short period of doing the wall putty and paint, it suffered cracks automatically and left the place and space on wall itself and now the house of the complainant suffered damages by using the alleged material supplied by the opposite party no.1 which was of inferior quality. It is averred that complainant complained about the same to the opposite party but the opposite party no.1 misbehaved the complainant and asked to contact opposite party no.2 & 3 . Complainant contacted the opposite party no.2 & 3 on toll free numbers and official of opposite party no.2 visited the house of complainant and inspected the house and assured the complainant to do the needful but till date nothing has been done by the opposite parties. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.100000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it is admitted to the extent that receipt no.2821 dated 16.05.2012 was issued by the opposite party no.1 but no any other material was purchased or never supplied by opposite party no.1 to the complainant. It is averred that the opposite party supplied the material as mentioned in the receipt and it was the duty of the complainant to check the goods at the time of purchase. The defect can be of the negligence of unskilled labour, who painted the house of the complainant. The opposite party is not liable for any damage of any type whatsoever. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that opposite party no.1 is not the authorized dealer of opposite party No.1 and he is not liable for his business dealing and opposite party no.2 never supplied to him any business items just like Birla Wall Putty and the answering opposite party is not responsible for the business activities of opposite party no.1 and the complainant as the opposite party no.1 is not doing any business under the dealership of opposite party no.2. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that it is denied that the complainant has purchased the alleged goods manufactured by answering opposite party from the opposite party No.1 as alleged. It is averred that the invoice which is relied upon by the complainant is not concerned to the answering opposite party however, in view of the same, the present complaint filed by the complainant deserves its dismissal against the answering opposite party. It is averred that if the complainant has approached an unskilled labour for painting purpose, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for the same. It is averred that the complainant has not taken any report from the independent agency to substance their averments however, in the absence of the same, the averments made in the complaint cannot be relied upon. It is averred that the invoice itself does not mention the name of the complainant which reflects that by whom the goods of answering opposite party were purchased. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
6. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for opposite party no.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and has closed his evidence. However opposite party no.2 did not lead evidence and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.11.2015 of this Forum.
7. We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
8. In the present case the grievance of the complainant is that the material purchased from the opposite party no.1 i.e. Putty, Primer, paint etc. and manufactured by opposite party no.2 & 3 on different dates was of inferior quality due to which the walls of his house damaged and he suffered a huge loss on account of purchase of material and labour etc. and has demanded compensation from the opposite parties.
9. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that to prove his case complainant has only placed on record bill Ex.C1, list Ex.C2 and photograph Ex.C3 but the bill Ex.C1 is not issued in the name of complainant, document Ex.C2 is merely a hand written list of material and does not prove the purchase of items from the opposite parties. The photograph Ex.C3 is not proved by negative and no affidavit of the photographer has been placed on record. Moreover the complainant has not placed on record any expert evidence to prove that the material so purchased by the complainant was of inferior quality. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the complainant has failed to prove his case and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
08.06.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………………..
Ved Pal, Member.
