West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/76/2017

Subrata Kumar Singha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, AkzoNobel India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

 PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.                           

     

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member,

Complaint Case No.76/2017

 

Subrata Kumar Sinha,

Saratpally, Dak-Bunglow Road, Midnapore Town, P.S.-Kotwali,

District-Paschim Medinipur

                                                                ..………..……Complainant.

Vs.

1. M.D., Akzo Nobel India Ltd., Geetanjali Apartment-1^st Floor, 8-B, Middleton Street, Kolkta-700071​
2. Sreeniketan, Prop. Arnab Paul, Dharma Traffic More,  P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur

                                                                                .…...……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

                For the Complainant  : Mr. Subrata Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

                For the O.P.                 : Mr. Partha Kumar Basu, Advocate.

 

                Decided on: 26/12/2017

                               

ORDER

            Pulak Kumar Singha, Member : 

 

                     Complainant files  this case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

  In brief the case of the complainant is that he purchased painting materials from O.P. no.2 on 22/09/2016, 29/09/2016 and 04/10/2016 respectively against proper receipt. The persons of contractor applied such paint on due process but it is found that the layer of paint started to come out from the wall like rubber sheet, complainant intimated the matter to the O.P. no.2 who visited the condition of the wall and assured to compensate, complainant returned the unused paints to O.P. no.2. The matter was also informed O.P. no.1 who sent a technical person and he inspected the ugly condition of the wall but he did

                                                                                                                                                                   Contd……………P/2

 

                                                                                           ( 2 )                                                                                                 

not take any step and in such way O.Ps.  harassed the complainant and O.Ps. are deficient in service. Finding no way complainant appeared before this Forum for getting redressal as per prayer of complaint.

                 O.P. no.2 contested the case by filing written objection, denying the allegations of complainant, stating inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable, complainant purchased the paint materials from  O.P. no.2 but not paid purchased amount as he had good relation with O.P. no.2. O.P. no.2 is a dealer of paint company, this O.P. had no deficiency in service and prayed for rejection of complaint.

O.P. no.1 appeared and by filing a petition stated that he adopted the  written objection of O.P. no.2.                                                                                                         

                             Decision with reasons

Fact of the case is that complainant purchased some painting materials from O.P. no.2 for painting his new constructed building’s outside wall painting and some portion of wall was double coated painted and after some days complainant found that painting materials layer started to come out like rubber sheet from the wall. Complainant informed the matter both O.Ps., they inspected the condition of the wall of the house of complainant but they did not take any step.

To prove his case complainant adduced evidence and tendered himself as PW-I and submitted documents which are (Marked as Exhibit 1-3 series). Complainant was cross-examined by O.Ps.  O.P. no.2 also adduced evidence and tendered himself as OPW-I and he is cross-examined by complainant. OPW-I admitted  that as there is a good relationship with O.P. no.2 and complainant, as such as per telephonic,  order O.P. no.2 supplied the paint materials. This  witness  also admits  that complaint informed about removal of new paints from the wall and he visited himself and  informed O.P. no.1 and sent the paint to O.P. no.1 who manufactured the same.

It appears from the documents that through the estimate slips (Exhibit-1 to 1/3) are apparently presumed  that it is  an estimate only. OPW-I admitted in his evidence  that complainant purchased painting materials but did not paid the amount. So it proved that  complainant purchased paints materials from O.P. no.2 and it revels from (Exhibit 1/3) estimate slip that O.P. no.1 received unused paints of 6 nos. item i.e. 20 Liters X 1, 4 Liters X 1 and 1 Liter X 4 paints on 02/11/2016. Complainant purchased the paints on 22/09/2016, 29/09/2016 and 04/10/2016 respectively. O.P. no.1 has failed to prove by any evidence that complainant did not pay the amount for purchased painting materials. It  is very common practice that few shopkeepers for avoiding Govt.  taxes issued estimate slip instead of  cash memo at  the time of purchased articles. Moreover O.P. no.1 could not

                                                                                                                                                    Contd……………P/3

 

                                                                                             ( 3 )

submit any documents that he made Tagid for payment from the complainant, rather complainant proved (Exhibit 3 to 3/2) that he intimated manufacture i.e.  O.P. no.1 in  respect of  bad quality of paint but they did not pay heed. O.P. no.2 produced one Test Certificate which is not proved by any evidence and quality expert never comments that process of using paint is wrong and never physically verified the condition of wall of the building. Complainant submitted some photographs of the painting wall which apparently shows that paints were removed from the wall. It is very common practice that in a new building wall any type of paint can easily adhered even primary paint also. In the instant case it can never say that due to very old building wall and due to wrong process of use of paints it had happened. O.P. no.2 also did not produce any register of accounts where it shown that sold materials amount due from complainant. It is admitted fact that after receiving the complain  from the complainant in respect of bad  quality of paints, O.P. no.1 with proper receipt return back the unused paints. If the material was the good conditions or the same was not in old stock  material then O.P. no.1 would not  return back the sold materials on easy way without  any comments. After receiving the complain in respect  of  defect painting materials on several dates O.P. no.2  did not take any step to solve the problem rather they did  not pay heed to the said complain  of the complainant though complainant spent some amount for  painting materials as well as contractors fees for work.  In view of the discussions here in before we find that complainant has harassed, suffers and  sustained mental pain and monitory loss due to negligence, careless and deficient in  rendering service by both O.Ps. So, we think that complainant is entitled to get an order with compensation.

 The complainant case succeeds.                                                                                             

                           Hence, it is,

                                                              Ordered,

                           that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost against O.P. no.1 and 2.

O.P. no. 1 & 2 are  directed to pay jointly or severally Rs.45,000/- as cost of the materials, to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain, monetary loss and deficiency of service and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to  the complainant within one month from the date order.

Failure to comply the order O.Ps. are liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as penal cost to be paid to the Legal Aid Fund of this Forum till full realization.  

                       Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

           Dictated and Corrected by me                        

 

                             Member                                                                                   President

                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                      Paschim Medinipur