CC No.238 of 14.10.2015
Gurdeep Singh Vs Berger Paints India
18.11.2015:Present: Complainant Gurdeep Singh in person.
It is alleged by the complainant that in connection with the painting of his house he had approached Op no.2 for purchasing the paint material. The complainant told Op no.2 that there was a problem of saltpeter (shora) in his house and Op no.2 advised him to make a use of special material known as Super Latex Plus and then to make a use of the paint of the Berger company. Op no.2 stated that the said material was costly and beyond the reach of the complainant but there was 100% guarantee of the saltpetre and that the problem of the shora will not take place in future for a period of 4-5 years. The complainant relying upon the aforesaid representation made by Op no.2 purchased the paint of the Berger company as also the special material known as Super Latex Plus having spent approximately Rs.45,000/- to 50,000/-. However, in the first month of 2015, the paint started getting peeled off from the walls and the complainant as also the members of his family were shocked to see the same especially when the problem was increasing day by day. The complainant made a complaint regarding the same to Op no.2, who further disclosed that he had made a complaint to Op no.1,the manufacturer of the product and that the executive of the company will visit the complainant. One Mr.Rahul executive officer of the company visited the house of the complainant and assured to find a way out for the removal of the grievance of the complainant but he failed to turn up again. Again the complainant made a complaint on 7.5.2015 vide complaint No.150502020 through phone No.18001036030 and the executive Ms Shabnam attended the call of the complainant and disclosed that his complaint was under process. The complainant again made a complaint on 13.5.2015 and this time one Mr.Dhiraj attended the call and told the complainant that they had e-mailed the matter to the higher authority but no action was taken.
2. It is alleged by the complainant that he has suffered the loss in a sum of Rs.2lacs because of the bad material (low quality) manufactured by Op no.1. Accordingly he has brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(for short the Act) seeking a compensation in a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- on account of the deficiency in service, harassment as also the mental agony and further having sought the costs of the complaint.
3. The complainant has produced on file Annexures A to F, the copies of the cash memos dated 20.9.2014, 23.9.2014, 29.9.2014, 1.10.2014, 2.10.2014 and 3.10.2013 regarding the purchase of the paint material as also the Latex from Op no.2. He has also placed on file the two photographs taken from the containers of the Super Latex Plus but he has not produced any warranty to have been provided to the complainant either by Op no.2 or by the manufacturer of the Super Latex Plus having claimed the Super Latex Plus to be a remedy for salt petre (shora). Even on the bills Annexures A to G no such claim against the impact of the salt petre (shora) is made and rather under the terms and conditions given on the copies of the cash memos it is categorically provided: “ No guarantee of any goods”. Therefore, any averments made by the complainant regarding any warranty to have been provided by Op no.2 against the impact of the saltpetre after the use of Super Latex Plus before painting his house is found without any basis. It was fairly admitted by the complainant at bar that no such guarantee was provided to him by Op no.2 and that no such guarantee was even found on the containers of the Super Latex Plus, the photographs of which are placed on file by him. Therefore, there being no basis for the claim of the complainant, no primafacie case is made out for any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and therefore, the complaint is hereby rejected. The copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost.
File be consigned to the record room.
Member Member President
