IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 173/2011 (Filed on 05.08.2011)
Between:
P. Samuel,
Valuthundil Grace Villa,
Manakkala.P.O.,
Adoor, Pin – 691 551,
Pathanamthiutta Dist. …. Complainant
(By Adv. Sam Koshy)
And:
1. M/s. Melethil Hard Wares,
Adoor.
(By Adv. A.C. Eapen)
2. M/s. Asian Paints Ltd., 6A,
Shantinagar, Santhacruz (East),
Mumbai – 400 055. …. Opposite parties
(By Adv. Zirajuddin)
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant Sri. P. Samuel, Valuthundil Grace Villa, Manakkala.P.O., Adoor has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is as follows: Complainant is an Ex-serviceman. Complainant’s house was painted from 10.01.2011 onwards by using the products manufactured by 2nd opposite party, which was purchased from the shop of 1st opposite party. About 400 meters of the wall faces were painted after applying a coat of wall putty and primer and the other portion painted without applying wall putty. After one month the wall putty applied portions were damaged and become very bad. The portions without applying wall putty have no defects. Complainant contacted the 1st opposite party on several times and a representative of the 2nd opposite party inspected the house and he was convinced of the damages and he had assured to rectify the defects at the cost of the 2nd opposite party.
3. But no remedial actions have taken from the part of the opposite parties. Finally complainant sent notices to the opposite parties. But opposite parties didn’t turned up. The act of the opposite parties is a deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint for the realization of the cost of materials and labour charges of ` 3,20,000 with compensation of ` 2,00,000.
4. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate versions with common contentions. They contended that the allegations in the complaint are incorrect and baseless. The 1st opposite parties in their version contended that they are dealing with branded items of leading companies for the last 30 years. 1st and 2nd opposite parties admitted that the complainant had purchased products manufactured by 2nd opposite party from 1st opposite party. The products supplied by the 1st opposite party were standard and having good quality. The 1st opposite party also admitted that a complaint was reported by the complainant and immediately after getting the complaint the 1st opposite party reported the same to 2nd opposite party. The 1st and 2nd opposite party contended that a representative appointed by the 2nd opposite party visited the house and after examination of the painting and he reported that the defect was due to the application of paint without observing the directions of the 2nd opposite party and the work was done by inexperienced painters. The 2nd opposite party also contended that though the complainant used Asian Paints wall putty, primer used was of another brands. Therefore the 2nd opposite party can’t guarantee the optimum results. The opposite parties denied that the representative had ever made any offer to rectify the defects at the cost of the 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties are not liable for any damages if any caused to the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service from their part. Hence they prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 series. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of opposite parties. But they cross-examined PW1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. The Point:- Complainant’s allegation is that his house was painted by using the products manufactured by 2nd opposite party which was purchased from the shop of 2nd opposite party. About 400 meters of the wall faces were painted after applying a coat of wall putty and primer of opposite parties and the other portions painted without applying wall putty. After one month the wall putty applied portions were damaged. Complainant approached the 1st opposite party on several time for curing the defect. But no remedial actions have taken from the part of the opposite parties. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and they are liable to the complainant.
8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant’s authorized agent filed proof affidavit and adduced oral evidence as PW1 and the documents produced by him were marked as Ext.A1 to A3 series. Ext.A1 is the authorization in favour of PW1 attested by the Asst.Engineer, Water Authority, Pathanamthitta. Ext.A2 series (A2 to A2(j)) are the retail invoices issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext. A3 series (A3 to A3(c)) are the copies of notices sent by the complainant to the opposite parties and its postal receipts.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that they are dealing with branded items of leading companies. The products supplied by the 1st opposite party were standard and having good quality. After getting the complaint from the complainant, opposite parties appointed a representative who visited the site and reported that the defect was due to the application of paint without observing the directions of the 2nd opposite party and the work was done by inexperienced painters. 2nd opposite party also contended that even though the complainant used Asian paints wall putty, primer used was of another brands. So they can’t guarantee the optimum results. So opposite parties are not liable for any damages caused to the complainant.
10. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, there is no oral or documentary evidence from the part of the opposite parties. But opposite parties counsels cross-examined PW1.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, the only question to be decided is whether the painting materials involved in this complaint is having any complaints. According to the complainant, the painting materials supplied to him was not good whereas the contention of the opposite party is that they have supplied quality materials and the alleged complaints are due to the application of the materials against the guidelines and instruction of the company and due to the poor workmanship.
12. It is unfortunate to say that the complainant has not adduced any expert evidence for substantiating his contention by sending the samples of materials to appropriate laboratories for getting proper lab reports and by taking out an expert commissioner for bringing an expert opinion in this matter. In the light of the contentions of the opposite parties the complainant ought to have taken such measures for substantiating his contentions. Moreover the oral deposition of PW1 shows that he had no knowledge about the manner in which the painter mixed the putty and he is not aware whether the painter had attended the training given by the opposite parties and he was not in a position to say what all materials are applied to the walls before applying the putty. The relevant portion of the deposition of PW1 in his cross-examination is as follows:- “]p«n Ipg-¨Xv F§-s\-sb¶v F\n-¡-dn-bn-Ã………………-s]-bnâpv sN¿p-¶-hÀ¡v ]cn-io-e\w 2þmw FXr-I£n sImSp-¡m-dp-s¶pw hnP-b³ F¶ s]bnâÀ AXn ]s¦-Sp-¯n-«ptm F¶pw F\n-¡-dn-bn-Ã…………-]p«n CSp-¶-Xn\v ap³]v GXv material BWv D]-tbm-Kn-¨Xv F¶v F\n-¡-dn-bnÔ.
13. He also deposed before the Forum that he had no information that the 1st opposite party is also dealing in standard products or inferior quality products of other companies other than the products of 2nd opposite party. The relevant portion of his deposition is as follows:- “Gjy³ s]bnânsâ km[-\-§Ä AÃmsX aäv km[-\-§-fp-sS quality Iq-Sn-bXpw Ipd-ª-Xp-amb km[-\-§Ä 1þmw FXr-I£n Øm]-\-¯n \n¶pw hn¡p-¶-Xmbn F\n-¡-dn-bnÔ.
14. From the overall facts and circumstances and on the basis of the discussions herein we can’t find any deficiency against the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant and hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of better evidence.
15. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of June, 2012.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : P. Nelson
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Attested authorization in favour of PW1 by Asst.Engineer,
Water Authority, Pathanamthitta.
A2 series (A2 to A2(j)) : Retail invoices issued by the 1st opposite
party.
A3 & A3(a)) : Photocopies of notices sent by the complainant to
opposite parties.
A3(b) & A3(c): Postal receipts.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) P. Samuel, Valuthundil Grace Villa, Manakkala.P.O.,
Adoor, Pin – 691 551, Pathanamthiutta Dist.
(2) M/s. Melethil Hard Wares, Adoor.
(3) M/s. Asian Paints Ltd., 6A, Shantinagar, Santhacruz
(East), Mumbai – 400 055.
(4) The Stock File.
