By Smt. Bindu. R,  President:

          Complaint is filed by Kuriakose. K.P,  S/o. Poulose,  Kattackal House,  Vannathara,  Chulliyode Post,  Wayanad  against (1) Berger Paints India Ltd,  Represented by its Business Development Manager,  Mr. Mohammed Swalih,  Ramanattukara,  Kozhikode,  Kerala  (2)  Rahul. T,  Customer Executive,  Berger Paints India Ltd., Ramanattukara,  Kozhikode, (3)  Mr. Musthafa, S/o. Ummer,  Malika School Junction,  Ambalavayal  Post,  Wayanad as Opposite Parties alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

          2. The Complainant states  that the Complainant  is a retired  Teacher who had entrusted the painting  and related works to the Opposite Parties.  The 1^st  Opposite Party is the manufacturer and distributor of paints,  2^nd  Opposite Party is the Sales Executive and the  3^rd  Opposite Party is the person who under took the work of painting .

          3. The summary  of the allegations in the  complaint is that the 1^st  Opposite Party sent the  2^nd  Opposite Party to the house of the Complainant and the 2^nd  Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the 1^st  Opposite Party undertakes the painting  work without mediators from  individuals  on contract basis.  It was also told by him that the quality of  paint and work is high and the cost is less and  believing  his words the Complainant entrusted the painting  work of  his house to the respondents for Rs.3,46,000/-  as per the quotation submitted by the respondents on 09.03.2019 which was after inspecting the house by the Opposite  Parties.

          4. 1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties  entrusted the  work to 3^rd  Opposite Party and after huge delay and without any quality the  3^rd  Opposite Party painted the house when the Complainant informed the Opposite Parties about the low quality of work they consoled  the Complainant by saying that it is only a 1^st  coat and  everything  will be alright after the  2^nd  coat.  On 07.03.2020 the respondents came with work completion report without  completing the work and the Complainant mentioned in that the work as not satisfactory.  So they left promising the Complainant   to  carry out a 2^nd  coat painting  immediately.

          5. Nothing  has been happened thereafter and  the Complainant informed  the Opposite Party regarding the poor  quality of painting   and also about the peeling off of the paint but there was no response from the side of Opposite Parties.  The Complainant states that he had to spent more amount to rectify the defect than the amount paid  to the respondents.  The Complainant states that  he had spent more than Rs.3,60,000/- to repaint  the house in addition to the amount paid to the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant states that he had to afford serious deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties and  therefore approached the Commission with prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.9,50,000/-  along with other reliefs. 

6. Upon  notice from the Commission the  Opposite Parties entered into appearance.

7. The summary of the version of  1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties is that the allegation that the 1^st  and 2^nd  Opposite Parties entrusted  the painting work to the 3^rd Opposite Party is  not correct and is denied. The allegation that the painting was not done properly and the quality was very poor and when the Complainant complained about the poor quality of work these opposite parties used to console the Complainant by saying that it is only the first coat and after the completion of second coat painting it will be alright and will be up to the standard and believing their words the Complainant waited calmly and in the meanwhile these respondents managed to receive full payment from the Complainant in the stipulated time itself very tactfully is also not correct and is denied. It is also not correct that on 7/3/2020 these  opposite parties went to the Complainant with a work completion report without completing the second coat and when the Complainant told that the work is not done satisfactorily these opposite parties promised the Complainant to complete the second coat painting immediately and left the place.  The further allegation that after two - three weeks the paint started to peel off as the quality of paint and work was poor and since these opposite parties have not painted properly the Complainant informed these opposite parties about the same and these opposite parties visited the Complainant’s house again and promised to repaint the house but so far these opposite parties have not turned up etc are absolutely incorrect and are denied. The allegation that due to poor quality of paint and also due to poor quality of work the Complainant suffered huge loss, hardship and difficulties is also not correct and is denied. The allegation that the Complainant has to spent more than what he already paid to the opposite parties to rectify and repaint the house and his relatives and neighbours started to laugh at the Complainant for wasting money to deface the house is also not true and correct and is denied.   It is true that the Complainant had caused to send a lawyer notice dated nil to these opposite parties through his Advocate M.P. Johnson for which the first Opposite Party has given a proper reply through their advocate on 15/11/2021. A copy of the same was sent to the Complainant also. In the said reply the actual facts were clearly

explained.   The allegation that there is deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties and these opposite parties are jointly and severally liable along with the 3^rd  Opposite Party to pay Rs. 9,50,000/- to the Complainant towards the cost for repainting the house and towards compensation is not admitted by these opposite parties and are denied.  It is contented by  1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties that the 1^st  Opposite Party is a reputed manufacturer of paints in India and are producing quality paints which is being distributed all  over India. In every processes in the manufacture of the paints the company is maintaining quality control to ensure that only quality paints are going to the market. There are no complaints regarding the paints manufactured by the company. The paint purchased by the Complainant was also of very good quality. There is no basis for the allegation of the Complainant that the paint purchased by him for  painting  his house was of inferior quality.  It is  for the Complainant to prove that the company has sold him  substandard products.   Berger Paints India Ltd is only manufacturing  and distributing  paint products and are not undertaking  any painting work from customers or entrusting  any painting  work of customers  to  contractors  and prayed  for dismissal  of the complaint.

8. The version of  3^rd  Opposite Party is  that  as per the quotation signed by this Opposite Party and the Complainant on 9/3/2019, the painting work of the house of the Complainant was entrusted to this Opposite Party as per the details shown in the quotation for an amount of  Rs.3,46,000/-.  After applying two coats of  putty the painting work of the house had to be postponed as the  Complainant wanted to carry out the wooden work, interior work, plumbing, electrical, tiling work etc of the house.  Hence after applying the putty the house was again handed over to the Complainant for completing the above mentioned works.  It took more than 4 months for the Complainant to finish the above mentioned works and only after the completion of the said works this Opposite Party could start the painting work of the Complainant’s house. The painting work of the house was completed by January 2020. When the completion report was submitted to the Complainant on 7/3/2020,  the Complainant told this Opposite Party that he is not satisfied with the painting work of his house as there are blistering of paint at the bottom side of the walls. The allegation contained in the complaint that this Opposite Party promised to provide a second coat of painting is absolutely incorrect and this Opposite Party had already done second coating and there was no need for providing a further coating to the house.  The allegation that after two or three weeks of completing  the painting, the paint started to peel off as the quality of paint and work was poor and the house was not painted properly is not true and correct and is denied. The allegation that the Complainant informed this Opposite Party about the poor condition and about the peeling off the paint, which totally defaced the house of the Complainant,  this Opposite Party visited the Complainant again and promised to repaint the house but so far this Opposite Party has not turned up are all false allegations and are denied.   3^rd  Opposite Party denied the allegation that due to the poor quality of paint and also due to the quality of work the Complainant suffered huge loss and insurmountable hardship and difficulties is not  true and correct. The allegation that the Complainant had to spend more than what he already paid to the Opposite Parties to rectify and repaint the house is also not true and correct.   3^rd  Opposite Party contented that the Complainant  entrusted the painting of his house to this Opposite Party on the basis of the quotation dated 9/3/2019. The work entrusted to this Opposite Party and the particulars of painting work to be done in the Complainant’s house, it’s rate etc are shown in the quotation. After entrusting the painting work as per the quotation dated 9/3/2019 to this Opposite Party the Complainant requested to this Opposite Party to do some additional painting work, which were not included in the quotation. These additional works included the painting of compound walls, gate, grills fixed on the walls of the house etc. The Complainant promised to pay the actual charges of the extra painting work to this Opposite Party. The charges for doing the extra painting work was Rs.20,000/-.  When this Opposite Party requested the Complainant to  pay the said money, he refused to make the payment. The amount is still pending to be paid to this Opposite Party by the Complainant.   The original quotation for wood polish quoted by this  Opposite Party was Rs. 180/- per square feet, but the Complainant insisted that the rate of wood polish should be reduced considerably and finally the rate of wood polish was agreed as Rs.100/- per square feet.   The paint used for the painting of the complaint’s house was manufactured by M/s Berger Paints India Ltd and the same was of very good quality. When the Complainant complained about the blistering of the paint at the bottom part of the walls, the officers of M/s Berger Paints India Ltd visited and inspected the painting work done in the Complainant’s house. On inspection they found that the complaint was not due to any quality problem of the paint or due to any fault in the workmanship of the painting done. It was found that the moisture level on the walls was on the higher side and it was due to the abnormal moisture level that the blistering of paint had happened. Seepage of moisture results in peeling of paints. In the Complainant’s house the blistering of paints was due to high moisture level on the surface where the paint was applied. For the painting to give the desired results it is absolutely necessary that the moisture level on the surface is kept at the normal or the below normal level.  This is not the work of a painter but it can be done only by a civil

engineer. Without arresting the extra moisture on the walls, the painting will not last even if the paints of other companies are used or the painting is done by other painters. There is absolutely no meaning in blaming either the quality of the paint or the workmanship of the painter when the moisture level on the surface where the paints are applied is abnormal. The Complainant is well aware of it as he was present while the officers of M/s Berger Paints inspected the  Complainant’s house. The reading on the XP moisture metre was 20% at the time of inspection and the same was shown to the  Complainant  then and there itself and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          9. Evidence  in this case consists of oral  testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 from the side of Complainant and oral testimony of OPW1 and Ext.B1 and B2  from the side of  Opposite Party.  Ext.A1 goes to show that the Opposite Party company had given a painting  quotation on 09.03.2019 to the Complainant in which it can be seen that  a final amount of Rs.3,46,000/- is  shown as the quoted amount .  Ext.A2 is a job  completion confirmation signed by the customer (Complainant marking dissatisfied).  Ext.A3 is a lawyer notice sent by the Complainant  to the Opposite Party.  Ext.A4 is the notice sent to Opposite Party which was returned with postal endorsement “not known” .  Ext.A5 is the  reply notice from the  Advocate of the Opposite Party.  Ext.A6 is also reply to lawyer notice.            Ext.A7 is  a copy of the advertisement given by the Opposite Party.  Ext.  B1 is the  detailing leaf  let of the Opposite  Party.  Ext.B2 series  is an  e-mail reply given by Opposite Party to the Complainant.

          10. The following are the points to be analised  to derive into the merit of the complaint.

1.   Whether the Complainant had sustained to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties?
2. If proved  the compensation and costs to be awarded to the Complainant.

11.  Heard both sides and perused the records.

          12. On going  through the contents of the complaint and also on perusal of the version taking  into account  and verifying the documents produced from either side the following details can be seen.

          13. The Complainant had entrusted the work of painting of his house to the 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties  which is denied by them and the 3^rd  Opposite Party had painted the house of the Complainant.  

          14. During  cross examination, PW1  deposed  that “aq¶mw FXrI£n H¶mw  FXr I£n-bpsS staff  BsW¶pw H¶mw FXr-I£n aq¶mw FXr I£nsb G¸n-s¨¶pw ]d-bp-¶-Xn\v Ext. A1 document   lmP-cm¡nbn«p-­v.  Ext.A1  OP3 sSbpw Ftâbpw H¸v  am{Xta DÅq.  c­mw FXr I£n Ft¶mSv OP1 Company t\cn«v contract Gsä-Sp¯p \S-¯p¶p  F¶p ]d-ªXv  ImWn-¡m³  tcJ-IÄ  lmP-cm-¡n-bn-«n-Ô.  Further the Complainant  deposed that “H¶mw FXr I£n DtZ-ym-K-ØÀ hoSv  ]cn-tim-[n-¡m³ h¶n-cp¶p AhÀ ]cn-tim-[n¨v painting  \v  XI-cm-dn-söpw CuÀ¸w aqe-amWv Ipg¸w D­mbsX¶pw ]d-ªm At¶ Znhkw   ]d-ªn-à ]n¶oSmWv    ]d-ªXvv”.   PW1 further deposed that “plastering Ignªv  aq¶v amk-¯n\v tij-amWv painting  sNbvXXv AhÀ CP moisture meter D]-tbm-Kn¨v Fsâ  km¶n-²-y-¯n  CuÀ¸-¯nsâ Afhv t\m¡n-b-t¸mÄ AXv 20% Bbn I­n-cp¶p F¶p       ]d-ªm A¶v  ]d-ªnà ]n¶o-SmWv ]d-ª-Xv”.

       15. During  examination of OPW1  (on behalf of  OP 1 &2)  deposed that “R§-fpsS  I¼\n Fsä-Sp¯ Icm-dnsâ ASn-Øm-\-¯n-emWv 3þmw FXr I£n apkvX-^sb G¸n-¨-Xv”.   Ext. A2   dissatisfied F¶v  mark sNbvXn-«p­v.   I¼\n  ]e       Xc-¯n-ep-ff  paint  IÄ  \nÀ½n¨v amÀ¡äv sN¿p-¶p-­v.  Hmtcm product   \pw quality A\p-k-cn¨v ]e  hne-bm-Wv.  lc-Pn-¡m-csâ hoSnsâ  painting IcmÀ FSp¯v Ipdª hne-bv¡p-ff paint sNbvXXp-sIm-­mWv A]m-I-X-IÄ h¶Xv F¶p-]-d-ªm icn-b-Ã.  AXp-t]mse c­p coat sN¿p-¶-Xn\p ]Icw Hcp coat am{Xta  sNbvXpÅq F¶p   ]d-ªm icn-b-Ã.  ]cm-Xn-¡m-csâ compalint  sâ  basis  site inspect sNbvX-t¸mÄ A§n-s\-sbmcp defect I­n-cp-¶n-Ô.  With respect  to Ext.A5  reply notice  OPW1 deposed  that “R§Ä Ab¨ adp-]-Sn-bmWv AXp {]Imcw 500 sq ft   Øew affected area  F¶pw repaint sNbvXp Xcm-sa¶pw ]d-ªn-«p-­v.  Customer sN¿­ F¶p    ]d-ª-Xn-\m sNbvXn-«n-Ã.   500 Sq.m  am{Xw sNbvXm t]mc defect      Dff Øe-§Ä FÃmw repaint sN¿Ww F¶v customer ]dªp F¶p ]d-ªm icn-b-Ã.  In re examination,  OPW1 deposed  that apkvX-^¡v hoSv paint sN¿m³ G¸n-¨Xv  Contractor BWv.  I¼\n t\cn«v painting work sN¿m-dn-Ã.  hoSv ]cn-tim-[n-¨-t¸mÄ moisture meter reading 20 \v apI-fn Bbn-cp¶p BbXv customer ¡v ImWn-¨p-sIm-Sp-¯p”.  The Complainant has produced Ext.A1 which is only a quotation and not a receipt.  Even Ext.A2 is only a job completion confirmation.  There  is no proof  produced from the side of the Complainant to prove  that the amount of Rs.3,46,000/-  was given by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant and the Opposite Parties do not  deny  that  the painting  work is done at the house of the Complainant.  The allegation from the side of the Complainant is only  regarding  inferior quality of painting  and non fulfillment of promise made by the Opposite Parties.    The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties have taken  a stand that they have tested the moisture level in the house of the Complainant and detected 20% moisture.  If the level is above 12%, they are of the stand that there is  every chance of peeling of paint in the wall.  In these  circumstances what is required is the opinion  of  an  expert who can find out the real reason.  But the Complainant had not moved the Commission to get the appointment  of an expert to  inspect and report on this matter.  The Commission cannot  assess and ascertain the real reason for peeling of painting on the wall of the Complainant merely on the basis of available  evidences  and hence  under circumstances  where  both sides are having  their own reason and  since  there is  no evidence produced by the Complainant from any  expert which is an essential factor.  In this case we  cannot fix the liability on any one.

          16. In these circumstances  this  Commission found that the Complainant has not proved his case on merit and hence  point No.1  is found against the Complainant.  Since  point No.1 is found against the Complainant point No.2 has not been analysed by this Commission.

          In  above circumstances  Consumer Case is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected   by   me  and  pronounced  in  the  Open  Commission on this the  7^th  day of March 2024.

          Date of filing:25.03.2022.

                                                                             PRESIDENT:   Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER    :    Sd/- 

                                                                             MEMBER    :    Sd/-

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.           K.P. Kuriakose.                        Complainant.                   

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1.        Mohammed Swalih P.H.          Assistant Business Development

                                                                        Manager, Berger Paints India Limited.    

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.       Painting Quotation.                         dt:09.03.2019.

A2.       Job Completion Confirmation.       dt:07.03.2020.

A3.       Letter.                                   

A4.       Returned notice.

A5.       Copy of Letter.                                dt:15.11.2021.

A6.       Letter.                                             dt:18.10.2021.

A7 series     Copy of Advertisement.

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:

B1.        Brochure.

B2 series.   e-mail.

                                                                                                 PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                                                   MEMBER    :   Sd/-

                                                                                                   MEMBER    :   Sd/-