Order-16.

Date-27/07/2015.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased some paints item in packed tin from the OP vide cash memo no.4042 dated 18-08-2014 ad after taking delivery of the same and on his arrival at his house he found that one item (Nerolac Synthetic Enamel 1no 4ltr. Packing batch no.JA 3.6.1, manufacturing dated 07/2010) in the bottom portion of the container mentioned M.R.P. Rs.648/- whereas OP1 have charged Rs.1150 mentioned in the Cash Memo No.4042 dated 18-08-2014.

          After observing that fact complainant drew the fact to the notice of the OP over phone in the middle of September, 2014 and reported the matter to the OP but OP neither collected nor took back and also did not agree to pay difference of amount against his actual payment of Rs.1,150/- when MRP as mentioned as Rs.648/- that means OP took a sum of Rs.502/- as an excess amount and when OP refused to redress the grievance of the complainant, complainant reported the matter to the Assistant Director, CA&FBP, Kolkata and CA&FBP authority tried their best to solve the dispute the mediation failed and complainant was directed to approach before legal Forum for redressal.  Accordingly, for the unfair trade practice on the part of the OP complainant has filed this complaint for adopting unfair trade practice and also for taking excess amount than that of the MRP price and for other relief.

          On the other hand, OP1 by filing written statement has submitted no doubt in the month of November, 2014 complainant produced a cash memo bearing no name of the purchaser before the OP1 being Cash Memo Mo.4042 dated 18-08-2014 and wanted to return one item purchased by him that is Nerolac Synthetic Enamel 1 no. 4 ltr. Packing batch no.JA 3.6.1 having manufacturing date 07/2010,  But OP is a reputed business man tried to convince that after a long period that cannot received back and also convinced that it was sold about 4 months ago and it cannot be returned when it is noted in the receipt.

          Further OP tried to convince the complainant that actually in the said container weight is 3600 ml and as per choice of the complainant colour pigment was poured and it was mixed and then it became 4 ltr and for such mixer of colour pigment of 400 ml the balance amount was charged and accordingly the total amount was Rs.1,150/- and no excess amount was charged and further OP convinced that the complainant was confused and did not properly assess the matter.  It is further submitted that the colour combination was made as per choice of the complainant, complainant after mixture was satisfied and received the pain along with other paints.  So, question of misleading the complainant or deceiving the complainant does not arise and no way OP adopted any unfair trade practice.

          But anyhow, there was no question of refund of the same when the complainant’s main grievance is that OP took excess amount then that of MRP but it is not fact.  Further OP submitted that the present complaint is vexatious and for which the present complaint should be dismissed.

          On the other hand OP2 on behalf of the Nerolac Paints Ltd. by submitting written statement alleged that transaction is between the complainant and the OP1 and fact remains desirable colour-shed according to the choice of any purchaser is always prepared by the dealer or seller and for such colour pigment purchaser shall have to pay colourant cost or the preparation cost which depends upon the cost of the said what the purchaser choose.  So, the OP2 have nothing to do and about the MRP price as noted in the tin box (base colour tin box) is in respect of only said base colour and for missing of colour pigment invariably that amount shall be realized by the dealer or the seller from the purchaser.

          Invariably complainant asked the dealer for preparation of the said base colour into a required pigment for using and that was done by the dealer and that was rightly done and invariably at present the situation of the container is mixed colour that is the base colour and colour box as per choice of the complainant and that is the procedure of preparation of any paint and this noted in the body of the said container and no doubt that colour was done with full consent of the complainant and complainant being satisfied took delivery of payment.  So, the liability is not on the part of the OP2 the manufacturer, at the same time complainant has not brought any allegation against the manufacturer regarding quality and quantity of the paint container or about any manufacturing defect so, OPs practically harassed by the complainant for bringing in the Forum without any cause.  So, in the above circumstances, complaint should be dismissed against OP2.

Decision with Reasons

After comparative study of the complaint including written version as filed by the dealer cum seller Haripada Dutta Paints Pvt. Ltd. and also the written version of the manufacture company Kansai Nerolac Paint Pvt. Ltd. it is found that there is no dispute that complainant purchased the product of Nerolac Synthetic Pvt. Ltd. namely Nerolac Synthetic Enamel 1no 4ltr. Pack being batch no.JA 3.6.1, having manufacturing dated 07/2010 on payment of Rs.1,150/- against the Cash Memo No.4042 dated 18-08-2014.

          As per complaint main allegation of the complainant is that OP1 sold the said paint container at a cost of Rs.1,150/- but on the body of the said container MRP is noted Rs.648/- so complainant brought allegation that OP1 cannot claim Rs.1,150/- when the MRP is noted Rs.648/- and for which complainant claimed for refund Rs.502/- from the OP but OP refused, when complainant appeared before the CA&FBP, CA&FBP who failed to mediate and asked the complainant to appear before this Forum for redressal and complainant filed this case.

          After considering the argument of the complainant and also the OP1 who are present before this Forum at the time of argument we have gathered that, in fact, disputes arose for the callousness on the part of the seller that is the OP1 or for his employees.

          This comment has been passed by this Forum on the ground the complainant went there not to purchase a container of base colour.  In fact for several years companies are manufacturing base colour and for preparation colour, as per customer’s choice colour pigment is supportedly kept in another container which is mixed as per choice of the purchaser and thereafter the paint is finally used for painting.  Complainant admitted that he selected such colour as per his requirement that was mixed with the base colour container and actually in the base colour container the weight of the base colour is or was 3600 ml and that is printed in the said container as given by the manufacturer and it is also noted that required colour pigment shall be mixed for which separate cost shall be charged by dealer or seller.  Complainant has admitted in this case that he got a container having a weight of 4ltrs. Then it is clear 400 ml. colour pigment was mixed then container weight became 4ltrs.  If colour pigment would not be mixed with the colour base having a weight of 3600 ml. it cannot be increased to such a weight 4ltrs. We have collected from the argument of the complainant that complainant admitted that colour pigment was mixed as per his choice that means 400 ml. colour pigment was mixed as per his choiceable colour thereafter, complainant received it on payment of Rs.1,150/-.  From the guideline of the manufacturer as noted in the container we are satisfied that for mixture of colour pigment and for such processing no doubt OP received balance amount that is Rs.502/- and so, after adding Rs.502/- with the MRP price Rs.648/- the total is Rs.1150/- and that was received by the OP from the complainant after delivery.

          Fact remains complainant after receipt it waited for 4 months and probably complainant found that this container was excess after completion of his work when he went to the OP for taking back the same and to refund the amount when he raised this question that is receiving of excess amount that of the MRP but not before that.  Whatever it may be question of taking back of the said paint container does not arise.

          Regarding allegation against the OP1 about receiving excess amount of Rs.502/-against MRP price Rs.648/- we found that apparently that confusion was created by the OPs receipt.   If it would be noted in the receipt that Rs.648/- MRP for base colour container and Rs.502/- for mixture of colour pigment of 400 ml. but that is absent in the bill for which this complication arose.

          After indepth study of the entire compliant and written version and also the change of mind of the complainant at the time of argument we are convinced that the psychological aspect of a consumer has been changed when the Forum is convinced that he received a container of 4ltrs. but he has brought allegation that he received the container where MRP is noted Rs.648/- but he has not stated for which weight that MRP is noted.  In fact, that MRP Rs.648/- is noted in the base colour container having weight of 3600 ml. but complainant admitted that he received a container having 4 ltrs. knowing fully well that colour pigment was mixed and that was invariably 400 ml. that means OP did not deceived him and for mixture of colour pigment he received Rs.502/- in fact.

No doubt such sort of act on the part of the OP1 cannot be treated as deceitful manner of trade or unfair trade practice.  But we are convinced that this present receipt is anyway handled by any unskilled person who shall be confused.  No doubt OP1 himself admitted that their employees did not note it and that is their fault but as per consumer policy of India and guideline as already published in different newspapers and notifications the seller must have to note down in detail about the pack which is being handed over to the customers on payment in details of weight, actual price if there is any deduction that deduction shall be also noted what falls within consumers right and consumer factors and if it is a mixture or two container then about both there shall be a detail note but that is absent in this respect which is no doubt a negligent manner of service on the part of the OP.

Most interesting factor is that whole cloud has been removed by this Forum when this Forum found that the written version which has been filed by the OP1 is not at all clear though it was not prepared by such unskilled person who also failed to give any clarification at the time of hearing the argument but this Forum controlled the entire situation and asked the OP to submit a receipt about the details of that Rs.1,150/- what he received against that container and after filing of the same the entire matter is cleared but written version is hazy, clumsy having no detail that is the realizable at a glance.  In the light of the above observation and findings we are convinced that the OP did not issue a proper receipt but apparently the receipt supports that he received excess amount of Rs.502/- than that of the MRP.  If in the said receipt there shall be a note about Rs.502/- for adding colour pigment and processing fees in that case there was no question on the part of the Forum to declare any sort of deficiency on the part of the OP but as because that is absent, then it is no doubt negligent manner of service because receipt must reflect the actual factors against payment if it is not there invariably the customers has his right to know.

          Peculiar factor is that OP got chance to clarify at the time of filing the written version in detail but written version bears no such clarification.  Only that clarification was submitted when the matter was pointed out by the Forum and then OP submitted the details.  Truth is that there was no question on the part of the Forum to proceed further if written version would bear explanation for receiving Rs.1150/- but for want of that case is being continued and only for the laches on the part of the OP complainant was in darkness when the receipt reflects that he paid Rs.1150/-, paint container reflects that MRP Rs.648/- and no doubt it is one kind of harassment on the part of the OP.   But we are not unmindful to the fact from very inception that OP did not deceive the complainant in respect of the quality of the paint, weight of the paint or about receipt of money against that delivery but only failure is issuance of misguided, misleading receipt for which the was compelled to file this complaint.

          If actually receipt would be very clear in that case there was no ground on the part of the complainant to file this complaint as because the receipt is harassing, misleading for which the complainant had spent money to defend the case.  So, invariably for the laches of the OP1 complainant being misguided, being misled by the said receipt is compelled to file this complaint and spent money and for which OP shall have to compensate.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.500/-.  But no other relief is allowed except a compensation of Rs.500/- when we have gathered that complainant is not deceived by any means but only for invalid receipt issued by the OP complainant suffered much and only for their negligence complainant was compelled to file this only so we have awarded Rs.500/- and OP shall have to pay total amount of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant but no other relief can be granted to the complainant in the above circumstances.