DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 19.10.2022.
CC/196/2022
1. Kuttisankara Gupathan.V, - Complainant
S/o.Appu Gupthan, Valappilthodi,
Katambazhipuram-678 633.
2. Sreekanth V.,
S/o. Kuttisankara Gupathan.V
Valappilthodi,
Katambazhipuram-678 633.
(By Adv.Raghudas.S.G)
VS
1. INDIGO Paints Ltd, -Opposite Parties
Plot No.75, Major Industrial Estate,
South Kalamassery, Kochi-683 104.
(By Adv.Suvarna lekha.M)
2. KB Traders, 13/747,
Ground Floor, Adithya Apartment,
Azhiyannur, Katampazhipuram,
Palakkad.
(By Adv.Anusha Raj.P)
ORDER
BY SRI. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant purchased paint worth Rs.35,000/- manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party, dealer on the assurance given by the company staff that it has a warranty of five years and if any damage is caused during the period, the company will rectify it at their own cost. He used this for painting his old and new houses.
Within one month of the painting, the interlock in the old house got damaged with fungal attack and its colour started fading. It became slippery and the colour totally faded and became green. After two months, painting in the new house also started to peel and almost 70% of the paint had gone by this time.
The complainant informed this matter to the opposite parties. The officials of the 1st opposite party had visited the complainant’s house and after inspection they assured to settle the issue on payment of the full amount. But after that, they did not do anything to solve the issue and stopped attending their calls. Later, the 1st opposite party had stated that the paint purchased by the complainant is not manufactured by them and they have not issued any bill for the purchase.
Hence, he approached this Commission to get an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, financial loss and other inconveniences suffered by him together with interest and cost of the litigation.
2. After admitting the complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Both opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The 1st opposite party in their version contented that the complainant has not made the painter as party to the complaint and hence, it is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. They denied the allegations made by the complainant.
Soon after the receipt of the complaint, their Branch Manager and another Manager visited the complainant’s premises. They found that the complainant had bought several brands of paints including their brand. The area covered for painting was more than 1500 sq. meter and the quantity used was only 22 litres. The painters also informed the staff that they have used only 22 litres of paint for painting 1500 sq. meters which is insufficient.
The painter has not followed the instructions given by them for painting and was wrong in mixedly using the paint along with other brands.
If the instruction given in the brochures and the paint bottles are not followed, the paint will not last.
As per the instructions, the floor should be cleaned and it should be painted three times. Moreover, one litre of paint will cover only 40 sq.ft of space. The complainant did not comply this conditions and painted vast area and also mixed other brands.
The alleged defect occurred only due to the fault of the painter, and not due to the fault of the product. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
4. The 2nd opposite party in their version admitted that all the bills produced by the complainant are related to the purchase of the products from their shop. They denied the rest of the allegations and stated that when the complainant complained about the paint, they informed the 1st opposite party and their staff visited the premises. After inspection, they informed the complainant that the damage occurred due to the wrong application of paint and its quantity and the complainant admitted their mistake.
The 2nd opposite party is selling only the products manufactured by reputed companies and the damage occurred due to the non-compliance of instructions and not because of the paint. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. From the pleadings of parties, the following points were framed for consideration.
1) Whether the defect in the painting occurred due to non-compliance of instructions given by the manufacturer and using it by mixing with other brands of paints as alleged by the opposite parties?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4) Reliefs as cost and compensation.
6. Complainant filed IA.No.219/23 to appoint an Expert Commissioner to inspect the premises and it was allowed. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. Expert Commissioner’s Report is marked as Ext.C1. Complainant was examined as PW1. The 1st opposite party’s evidence comprised of proof affidavit and Exts.B1 and B2. The 2nd opposite party did not file proof affidavit. Evidence closed and heard the parties. Both parties filed notes of argument.
7. Point No.1
The complainant purchased paint manufactured by the 1st opposite party from their dealer, 2nd opposite party, for painting the interlock tiles in the courtyard of his old and new houses. The opposite parties assured five years warranty for the product. But within one month of painting, fungus started appearing on the top and its colour faded and it started peeling off. The tiles became slippery also. The opposite parties contended that the defect, if any, occurred is due to the non-compliance of the instructions given by the opposite party in painting. The complainant used only 22 litres of paint to cover 1500 sq.meters which is insufficient. Further, he applied two coatings of paint only instead of three coatings against the instructions and mixed different brands of paint together for painting.
8. Inorder to prove his case, the complainant filed application to appoint Expert Commissioner to inspect his house. The Commissioner in her report which is marked as Ext.C1, has stated that house No.1(old house). “The presence of moss and fungus has been detected on the top of the exterior flooring tile and the top surface of the tile appears to be too slippery. The paint on the top of the tile looks dim. But she did not notice any peeling off on the paint.”
In house No.2 (New house)
“Here the tile surface did not appear slippery. However, the appearance of the tile looks dim. Presence of fungus was noticed and the colour on the top of pin heads was different compared to the remaining portion indicating partial removal of paint from the tile.”
9. The Commissioner made these observation by visual inspection. She noted down that the quality of the paint, its constituents, the mix proportions etc. can be determined only by further laboratory investigations.
10. The complainant during his cross examination admitted that he applied two coats of painting. But regarding the mixing up of different brands of paints and the quantity used in painting, nothing was brought out during examination. The complainant had stated that they have painted only 750 sq. meters using the purchased paint.
11. The opposite parties produced two brochures which were marked as Ext.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 contains the instructions to be followed while using the paint. No evidence is adduced by the opposite parties to prove that the damages occurred due to violation of instructions by the complainant. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
12. Point Nos.2 to 4
The complainant painted his house during the year 2021 and the Commissioner inspected the house in the year 2023. The photographs produced along with Ext.C1 report shows the condition of the tile affected with fungus and mosses. The complainant contended that within one month itself, the colour started fading and affected with fungus. Eventhough the opposite parties inspected the premises, nothing was done by them to resolve the issue. It is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and they are bound to compensate the complainant for that.
The complainant is entitled to get compensation for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by them.
6. In the result, the complaint is allowed. Since the 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the paint, they are liable to compensate the complainant. The 2nd opposite party being the dealer is absolved from liability.
1) We direct the 1st opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service., Rs.15,000/- for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by him and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof, from the date of the order, till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 3rd day of June, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Original tax invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party to complainant (Invoice No.B2C/2256 amount to Rs.2,380/-).
Ext.A2: Original tax invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party to complainant (Invoice No.B2C/511 amount to Rs.466/-).
Ext.A3: Original tax invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party to complainant (Invoice No.B2C/625 amount to Rs.1,091/-).
Ext.A4: Original tax invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party to complainant (Invoice No.B2C/912 amount to Rs.2,100/-).
Ext.A5: Original tax invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party to complainant (Invoice No.B2C/895 amount to Rs.4,200/-).
Ext.A6: Original tax invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party to complainant (Invoice No.B2C/804 amount to Rs.4,100/-).
Ext.A7: Original tax invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party to complainant (Invoice No.B2C/588 amount to Rs.5,325/-).
Ext.A8: Original tax invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party to complainant (Invoice No.B2C/895 amount to Rs.4,200/-).
Ext.C1: Commission Report.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Ext.B1: Brochure given by the 1st opposite party.
Ext.B2: Photo of paint bottle of the 1st opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
PW1: Sreekanth, the 2nd complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : 10,000/-.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out
