DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 247 of 4.7.2018

                                      Decided on:   3.9.2021

Ravi Kant Handa s/o Sh.Gian Chand, resident of 1015, St.No.9-A, Old Bishan Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Berger Paints India Limited, Berger House, 129, Park Street, Kolkata-700017 through its Chairman/M.D.
2. Berger Paints India Limited, Plot No.658, Industrial Area-A,Near Shiv Chowk, GT Road, Ludhiana-141008 through its General Manager.
3. Gurbir Singh Walia s/o S.Bittu, r/o village Arain Majra, Near Lalan Wala Peer, Chaura Road, Sanour Mandi, Infront of Gaushala, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Bharpur Singh, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.S.K.Setia, counsel for OPs.                                      

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Ravi Kant Handa (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Berger Paints India Limited and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he contacted on Toll free No.18001036030 and from the side of OP No.1, OP No.3 contacted with him and appointed Shiv Shanker for the work of paint. It is averred that the OPs started the work of paint on 28.4.2018.It is further averred that on 2.5.2018 the OPs after finalizing the paint work on the wall of the complainant’s house put Damstop on the wall, as a result of which the wall was spoiled. Thereafter the complainant contacted on Toll Free number and got registered his complaint No.SSR 1805-000499 on which OP No.1 sent its employee who after verifying the said fact admitted to release the claim of the complainant. It is further averred that on 8.5.2018 the OP paint the wall without making base due to which the Milk Grammar Paint and walls as well as paint was spoiled. The complainant again approached OP No.1 through toll free number who admitted to pay the claim. It is further averred that on 12.5.2018 the OPs after calculation, told the complainant to pay their labour amount. It is averred that the OPs neither completed the work of paint nor paid the claim amount rather they received Rs.33754/-from the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant also moved an application against the OPs to P.S.Lahori Gate, Patiala vide which the OPs compromised and promised to refund the amount but they did not do so and refused to return the amount. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony, pain and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to return the amount of Rs.33754/- received from the complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation.
3. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complaint is an abuse of process of law and has been filed on the basis of false facts to lower down the goodwill of the OPs; that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.
4. On merits the OPs after denying all averments made in the complaint have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C15 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Kuljit Singh, Manager and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is consumer of the OPs who contacted OPs No.1&2 on their toll free number for the work of paint, who contacted OP No.3 and OP No.4 was appointed for this work on 28.4.2018.The house was painted but was not painted upto mark. The complainant contacted OPs but nothing was done and have received Rs.33,754/- from the complainant without finishing the work. So the complaint be allowed.
9. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the complaint is abuse of process of law. It is denied that complainant has suffered any loss. So the complaint be dismissed.
10. To prove this case Ravi Kant complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint.Ex.C1 is message dated 24 April from Berger but year is not mentioned. In this message, it is mentioned that their executive Gurbeer Singh will contact the complainant. Ex.C2 are the photographs, according to which, as per the complainant the paint was destroyed. There is also photograph with damp stop.Ex.C3 is message of Berger with regard to that complaint of problem has been registered on 2.5.2018 and will be attended shortly.Ex.C4 is another message of berger wherein again it is mentioned that Gurbeer Singh will contact the complainant.Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 are bills,Ex.C9 to Ex.C14 are also bills.
11. On the other hand Sh.Kuljit Singh Manager has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement and has denied all the allegations.
12. Although the OPs have denied the claim of the complainant but there are messages Exs.C1,C2,C3 and C4 from which it is clear that there was defect in the Berger paint. But the complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove that how much he has suffered and how much paint was destroyed. Without this report, the complainant cannot be given relief for repainting of entire area which was painted by Berger paint.
13. So due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and Berger Paint i.e. OPs No.1&2 are directed to rectify the mistake in the paint. No order as to costs and compensation.  

Compliance of the order be made by the OPs No.1&2 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:3.9.2021         

                                        Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar       Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                              Member                                        President