Delhi

North East

CC/436/2014

Ravinder Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Jay Pee Enterprieses - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 436/14

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Ravinder Kumar S/o Sh. Pooran Chand Gaur R/o A-44, Gali No. 1, Pocket-2 First Pusta, Sonia VIhar, Delhi-110094.		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.	M/s Jay Bee Enterprises Through its Prop/Dealer/Director Situated at Shahbad, Daulatpur, Delhi-42.   Mahalaxmi Sanitary Paint & Hardware Through its Prop A-739, Near Kaushik Medical Store, Main Market, First Pusta,                               Sonia Vihar, Delhi-94.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		31.10.2014
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		04.01.2018
			DATE OF DECISION      :		09.01.2018

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

 

 

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

ORDER

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased Velvet Touch Wall Putty and white wash material from OP2 who is authorized dealer of OP1 who was the manufacturer of the said wall putty. The complainant has stated that he had asked OP2 for purchase of JK wall putty but OP2 showed another wall putty manufactured by OP1 as product Velvet Touch Wall Putty assuring that the same is better than JK wall putty. The complainant, on this advise and assurance purchased the said wall putty from OP2 on various dates and payments made thereupon viz Rs. 2140/- on 07.06.2014, Rs. 2600/- on 10.06.2014, Rs. 2300/- on 17.06.2014, Rs. 3595/- on 26.06.2014, Rs. 3635/- on 27.06.2014 and lastly Rs. 1370/- on 03.07.2014.  However, within one month on application of the said material on the walls of his house, the complainant noticed that the said wall putty was sub-standard and defective and showing bad results due to which the wall where the complainant applied the said wall putty was not looking good and the wall putty was chipping off from the wall in patches. When the complainant informed OP2 of the said defect, OP2 ignored the complainant and its conduct and behavior of providing duplicate product of inferior quality has resulted in complainant suffering economical loss, labor charges beside harassment mental pain and agony. The complainant further submitted that a legal notice dated 05.09.2014 was also got served upon the OPs but to no avail. Therefore the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint against the OPs for manufacturing and selling such sub-standard defective material and has prayed for directions to OPs to:-

1. Pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant towards damages, mental pain, agony, harassment suffered by the complainant due to supply of such defective material.
2. Pay cost of labor incurred by the complainant for application of wall putty.
3. Pay Rs. 21,000/- toward cost of litigation.
4. Any other or further relief.

 

2. Notice was issued to OPs. OP2 was represented through its proprietor and on the written request/application of the complainant, OP1 was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 15.12.2015.
3. OP2 filed its written statement disputing the allegations of the complainant by stating that the complainant had himself asked for the cheapest wall putty and that OP2 was a mere trader of velvet touch wall putty which was manufactured by OP1 and the said wall putty has been sold to several customers without any complaint from them. The OP further took the plea that the bad results on the walls of the complainant’s house was due to carelessness of the painter and improper mixing and application of the material.
4. Complainant had filed rejoinder in rebuttal of the written statement in as much as that the complainant had purchased the velvet touch wall putty on the assurance by OP2 and in fact had paid more than what he would have paid for JK wall putty which is priced at Rs. 470/- per 20kg pack and the painter who had applied the wall putty was experienced in the said field and had done the same job in the premises of elder brother of the complainant without any complaint or carelessness.
5.  Evidence by way of affidavit were filed by both the parties exhibiting relevant documents and written arguments were also forwarded by them. Noteworthy is the improvement in the defence taken by the OP2 which is conspicuously missing in the written statement to the effect that the complainant had applied the wall putty on wet walls since the house of the complainant is adjacent to Yamuna River and nearby other houses are also having same seepage problems due to the natural process. The OP2 further argued that the complainant had not taken any expert report or proof or certificate to establish that patches or strips / bubbles on the wall developed due to inferior wall putty and the fact that the OP1 has run away to escape its liability, the same cannot be saddled on OP2.
6. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties in terms of arguments addressed by them in support and defence and have thoroughly scrutinized the case file. From the evidence placed on record by the complainant in terms of payments made for the said wall putty to OP2, application thereof on the walls of his house and the pictures / photographs of resultant patches and chipping of the same, it leaves no room of doubt that the velvet touch wall putty was of inferior quality and the defecnce and the arguments forwarded by OP2 are un-substantiated speculative based on mere conjecture and surmise without any cogent proof and are evasive denial to wriggle out of its liability of selling inferior quality wall putty to the complainant and therefore we find no force in the defence of the OP. The complainant has placed on record original bill/ receipts to the tune of Rs. 15,640/- for purchase of wall putty but has not placed on record any proof of the expenses incurred towards cost of labor for application of the said wall putty on the wall.
7. We therefore hold the OP guilty for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and award a sum of Rs. 15,640/- alongwith interest               @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization payable by OP to the complainant. Since labor charges have neither been quantified or proved by complainant the same cannot be awarded for the said reason. We also award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental pain, damages, agony and harassment. We also award a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses.  Let the order be complied with by the OP within 30 days of receipt of this order.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 09.01.2018)

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar)   Member