Order No.  19  dt.  16/02/2017

          The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainant for the purpose of painting of their entire building entered into a contract with o.p. no.1. After making contact with o.p. a representative of o.p. inspected the building of the complainant for executing the painting job. After carrying out the inspection the complainant was assured that they would be using high quality product manufactured by o.p. no.1 and would engage skilled personnel to execute the job of painting inside and outside the building. The entire job a repairing of the building was conducted by o.p. under the supervision of o.p. no.1. For the entire work the complainant entered into a contract with o.p. amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- and the said amount was paid to o.p. by the complainant through their business firms.

                The job of the painting work was completed in the month of 2012 and it was specifically guaranteed that the paint work would endure at least for 7 years and the same are fungi, bacteria and damp proof. After some months i.e. after completion of the painting work the glossy effect of the paint started to fade and the coffee black patches appeared on different places inside and outside the said building. The complainant brought to the notice of o.ps. and the complainant was assured that after the rainy season the entire building should wiped dry with cloth to avoid patches and deterioration of paint. The grievances of the complainant were not entertained regarding the deficiency in service. The complainant thereafter sent an e-mail to the Area Sales Manager, o.p. no.1 who inspected the entire building inside and outside and the said manager accepted the defects in the goods deficiency in service and agreed to redo the job and repaint the building inside also. On 20.11.12 the representative of o.ps. visited the residence of the complainant and made inspection. After such inspection report was submitted admitting the defect of goods and deficiency in service. In spite of admitting the defect o.ps. did not take any effective step for which the complainant had to file this case for redressal of their grievance. In view of such fact the complainant filed this case against the o.ps. praying for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs, Rs.2 lakhs for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- for litigation cost.

                The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the o.p. company is a renowned paint manufacturer company and in order to keep hard earned goodwill of its product intact authorized the o.p. no.2 who carries out the painting job with the skilled personnel trained in company’s own work shop under the supervision of the trained personnel of o.p. no.1 to maintain the quality of paint and to secure customers’ satisfaction. The o.ps. normally do a joint inspection of the building to find out any visible problems and in the present case o.ps. visited the residential house of the complainant and inspected the exterior as well as interior walls of the said residential house and quoted estimate required for carrying out the painting job. Since the complainant agreed to pay the o.p. no.2 and the building in question is a big one and after accepting the job o.p. no.2 had to check every nook and corner whether there is any hidden problem or not. It was stated that in case of a building if there is any inherent problem which is not visible at the time of inspection, the same will come out only after the painting work and that is beyond the control of o.ps. The o.p. no.1 provides warranty not guarantee and 7 years guaranty was provided not for all the products. The o.ps. provide 7 years product warranty for specific products applied on the exterior surface but no product warranty is provided for the products applied on the interior surface but in general 1 year service warranty is provided against the service / paint application. Before acceptance of the contract a printed terms and conditions along with estimate is provided to the customers. If the client is agreed upon only then he assigns the painting job to o.p. no.1. During the inspection after the painting work there was no visible damage and/or problems in the exterior as well as interior surface as a result o.ps. did not inform the complainant about any problem during the painting work. Since the building was a few years old house unless the complainant specifically mentioned about any problems in the surface or pointed out any inherent problem of the surface which cannot be visible by general inspection. The o.ps. could not work upon it, in fact there were inherent problems in the walls of residential building where patches had been detected only after painting. After completion of the work whenever the complainant made any complaint to o.ps. the representative of o.ps. visited the house of the complainant and rectified the same. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

                On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant entered into a contract with o.ps. for painting their building.
2. Whether the complainant paid the amount claimed by o.ps. for doing such work.
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
4. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. for which the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Decision with reasons:

                All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

                Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that on being attracted by advertisement made by o.ps. the complainant engaged the o.ps. for doing the interior and exterior paint of the building. After completion of work within a few days some defects were found and the same were brought to the notice of o.ps. but no action was taken on  behalf of o.ps. Ld. lawyer for the complainant emphasized that the complainant paid the entire amount claimed by o.ps. and since the guaranty of the painting was made for 7 years and within that period if any defect is found the complainant will be entitled to remove the said defects. Since in the building itself various patches were found after the completion of the painting work the complainant prayed for compensation for deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. as well as other reliefs.

                Ld. lawyer for o.ps. argued that o.p. no.1 is a reputed company and they  have their competent workers who are generally engaged in painting the building. After entering into a contract with the o.ps. and before undertaking the work company’s representative visited the building to inspect and after inspection the work was started. Here in this case the representative of company, o.p. no.1 visited the building and did not find any inherent defects and after the application of the painting since the building was old for a few years, therefore the complainant ought to have mentioned in respect of any defects that was related to the said building. But here in this case no such defects were brought to the notice of o.ps. for which o.ps. could not take any precautionary measure protecting those defects, as such the allegation made by the complainant is manufactured one and accordingly there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and accordingly the case is to be dismissed.

                Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant engaged o.ps. for painting of their building. It is also found from the materials on record that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as per the claim made by o.ps. After getting the said order from the complainant the o.ps. competed the painting work but after some days a few patches were found inside and outside walls for which the complainant brought to the notice of o.ps. The o.ps. in response to the complaint lodged by the complainant visited the building and found that the complainant had suppressed poor internal conditions of the exterior and interior walls of the said building. It is also found from the materials on record that the complainant suppressed the fact that some portions of the house were defective which caused patches in the wall after painting. The o.ps. provides warranty and not guarantee. The o.ps. never gave any guarantee for 7 years of the user of the paint. The o.ps. provided 7 years product warranty for specific products applied on the exterior surface but not product warranty was provided but in general 1 year surface warranty is provided against the service / paint application. It is also found from the materials on record that before entering into the contract with the prospective customer a printed terms and conditions along with estimate is provided by o.p. no.1 whereby the warranty clause is explained. After going through the said warranty clause if the customer agrees to accept the said warranty clause then the order is placed to o.p. no.1. In the warranty clause o.ps. mentioned very clearly that warranty shall be limited only to the extent of making good the affected area only. It shall not cover in any consequential losses. Ld. lawyer for o.ps. rightly argued that if any defect is found in the said painting the area of the affected painting will be rectified. The o.p. no.2 used the best quality of paint on interior as well as exterior walls of the residential building of the complainant and it is not disputed that the paint applied were bacteria and fungi proof but o.ps. never assured that the paint will be damp proof since the painting is not the solution of damp and/or water seepage. The o.p. no.1 being a reputed company in the field of manufacturing paint and by applying their experienced men the painting was made in the said building. The defects that arose due to the seepage and water or damp for which o.ps. cannot be held liable and it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. Since the complainant paid huge amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in respect of painting of their building the patches cropped up in some areas of the building certainly caused an embarrassment to the complainant for which o.ps. should be given direction to remove those patches in respect of the affected parts of the said building and since the complainant suffered mental harassment they should be provided with some cost.               Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

                Hence, ordered,

                That the CC No.407/2013 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. The o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to repair the patches after using their product as well as their experienced men without claiming any amount from the complainant and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.             

                Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.