Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 263
Instituted on : 02.05.2022
Decided on : 22.08.2023
Rajinder Kumar Bhardwaj s/o Sh. Tek Chand R/o village Brahman Mohalla Sampla Distt.Rohtak.
.......................Complainant
- M.D.Asian Paints IMT Kheri Sadh Distt. Rohtak.
- Pro.Shri Ram Paints Paints and hardware Railway Road, Sampla Mandi Sampla Distt. Rohtak.
..........................Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Yogender Dalal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Rinku Bhoria, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased Asian Paints with Royal Marka from the opposite party No.2 on dated 15.01.2021 amounting to Rs.64750/- and the opposite party issued a bill no.5442 dated 15.01.2021. The complainant hired a contractor named Mustak for whitewash of the house and gave Rs.55000/- for whitewash to the contractor. He did the work with all precautions which were required for the paints. But after about one month the paints of sky blue type faded and there appeared some patches and the paint rooted up from the wall. Complainant complained the same to opposite party No.2 and he suggested to directly contact with opposite party No.1 and also promised that he will also lodge complaint. On 27.03.20121 he received a message from the Asian Paints that his complaint was registered vide complaint no.0505456299. Thereafter an official of opposite party No.1 inspected the house of complainant and assured that his complaint was genuine and they will refund the amount after discussion with the authority. Complainant sufficiently waited for the same but no action was taken by the opposite parties. Complainant again received a message on 02.04.2021 that Sh.Rajesh will visit at the sight but nobody came at his house. Thereafter on 10.04.2021 he received a message from the company that his complaint no.505456299 has been closed without giving any reason. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant spent an amount of Rs.42200/- on sky blue royal paint with primer and Rs.55000/- were given to contractor. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.97200/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that independent contractor(Mr. Mustak) was engaged by the complainant himself, to carry out the painting work at the complainant’s site and hence the responsibility of improper application and its result relies solely on the complainant, as there are no issues with respect to the quality of the product. It is further submitted that after receiving the complaint, representative of the answering opposite party have visited the house of the complainant on 30.03.2021 and inspected the entire painting work of the house and observed moisture in the wall. The representative had also shown the complainant the percentage of moisture with the help of moisture meter and explained the technical reasons for peeling/fading off the paints and also advised him about the solution for the said issue. The representative of the opposite party asked the complainant to show the buckets of the paint used on walls and bills but the complainant did not provide any proof of purchase at that time. During discussion the contractor/painter had revealed that primer was not applied on the entire wall instead it was used only some portions of wall which was badly damaged. The complaint of the complainant was closed by the opposite party No.1 as there was an application issue and not the product related issue. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3,. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that complainant had come to the shop of respondent no.2 and complained about the paints of sky-blue paint and answering respondent told him that you directly complained to Asian Paints and he will also lodge the complaint regarding this paint. The answering respondent complained to the Asian Paints and the matter is between the Asian Paints and complainant. The answering respondent is not at fault. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW3/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 09.05.2023. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, and closed his evidence on 09.08.2023. Ld. counsel for opposite party No.2 made a statement that reply already filed on its behalf be read in evidence and closed his evidence on 8.07.2023.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that complainant had purchased paint and other products related to paint worth Rs.64750/- from the opposite party No.2 as is proved from the bill Ex.C1. As per the messages placed on record as Ex.C2 to Ex.C6, the complaint of the complainant was registered by the opposite party No.1 and it was assured that the representative of the company will visit the site on 02.04.2021. As per message E.xC4, the complaint was closed on 10April 2021. On the other hand, contention of opposite party No.1 is that after receiving the complaint, representative of the answering opposite party visited the house of the complainant on 30.03.2021 and inspected the entire painting work of the house and observed moisture in the wall. The representative of the opposite party asked the complainant to show the buckets of the paint used on walls and bills but the complainant did not provide any proof of purchase at that time. During discussion the contractor/painter had revealed that primer was not applied on the entire wall instead it was used only some portions of wall which was badly damaged. The complaint of the complainant was closed by the opposite party No.1 as there was an application issue and not the product related issue. But to prove the alleged contention, opposite party No.1 has not placed the affidavit of representative of the opposite party no.1 who visited the site, nor the affidavit of contractor to prove that there was application issue. No technical/expert report has been placed on record by the opposite party to prove the same. Bill of purchase has already been placed on record by the complainant. The ground taken by the opposite party that there was application issue with regard to the paint is not proved. On the other hand, complainant has placed on record affidavit Ex.CW2/A of one Sunil, who is doing the work of paints for the last 10 years and he has submitted that “Patches are fade of the colour due to deficiency in the paints”. Another affidavit Ex.CW3/A is of Mustak contractor, who did the work of paint had submitted in his affidavit that “he did the entire paint work in the house of complainant and took Rs.55000/- for whitewash. He further submitted that the Sky blue paint was faded and there are some patches on the wall, due to which the entire house was looking ugly”. As such it is proved that there was defect in the product of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant. As per bill Ex.C1, the complainant had purchased the product worth Rs.64750/- but he has claimed Rs.42200/- on account of skyblue royal paint with primer and Rs.55000/- regarding the expenditure of whitewash. As some part of the house was faded due to the alleged paint so we have assessed the expenditure of whitewash as Rs.30000/-Hence the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.72200/-(Rs.42200/-+Rs.30000/-).
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.72200/-(Rupees seventy two thousand and two hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.02.05.2022 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.08.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
