Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/194/2020

Harpreet Singh Brar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Sachdeva Paints and Hardware Store - Opp.Party(s)

Jitender Thakkar

08 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.                   

Complaint Case No.194 of 2020.

Date of Instt.:28.08.2020.

Date of Decision: 08.04.2024.

Harpreet Singh Brar son of Rajender Singh Brar resident of Bigher Road, Fatehabad.

...Complainant

                    Versus

1.M/s Sachdeva Paints & Hardware Store, Fowara Chowk, Fatehabad-125050 through its Proprietor.

2.ACRO Paints Limited A-115, RIICO Industrial Area, Phase-I, Bhiwadi-301019 (Rajasthan).

          ...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:       Sh.Jitender Thakker, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Naresh Sachdeva, Advocate for OPs.                                           

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                                              SH.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                  

ORDER

SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant wanted to get the walls of his house painted and for this purpose he purchased 10 bags of acrocem Senocem 25 Kgs. Each for a total sum of Rs.9600/- vide invoice No.1491 on 02.12.2019 from Op No.1 because the Op No.1 had assured that the product is of good and superior quality;   that the painter, engaged by the complainant, used the Senocem on the walls for which Rs.30,000/- were spent by the complainant as labour charges etc. in the month of February 2020; that the complaint was taken by surprise on noticing that the Senocem was getting removed from some places by leaving blank spots which shows that the product was quite old;  that the complainant suffered financial loss on account of inferior quality of Senocem; that the complainant requested the  Ops to make the loss good but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as suppression of material facts, locus standi and cause of action etc. It has been further submitted that the replying Op No.1 had sold the product in a sealed condition and even no guarantee and warranty was ever given by the replying Op. It has been further submitted that the alleged happening occurs when the paint is not removed from the wall and the walls are not wet and it may be due to carelessness of the painter of the complainant; that there is no expert report on the case despite the fact in the vicinity number of expert painters reside; that the replying Op has been selling the product in question for the last 40 years and he has never received any complaint whatsoever qua the product in question, therefore, replying Op cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          Op No.2 in its reply has taken more or less the same grounds as taken by Op No.1 in its reply. It has been further submitted that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying Op. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made by controverting the other contentions.

4.                          In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C10. On the other hand learned counsel for the Ops has tendered affidavits Ex.RW/1A and Ex.RW2/B with documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4.

5.                          Final arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties have been heard and the case file has also been perused minutely.

6.                          The complainant in his complaint has pleaded that the Senocem allegedly purchased  (Anenxure C1) from Op No.1 by him, which was used by the painter on the walls of his house, was of inferior quality as it started removing from the walls leaving the blank spot and it all happened due to inferior quality of the product. It is settled principle of law that the complainant has to stand on his own legs to prove his case without taking any benefits from the weaknesses of the other party but in the present case, the complainant has neither produced on the case file any expert evidence nor any affidavit of the painter who had painted the walls of the complainant. Though learned counsel for the complainant has placed on a file receipt Annexure C8 to show that the painter who had painted the walls was having 30-35 years of experience and the painter has also disclosed that it all happened due to inferior quality of Samosam.  This receipt is also of no help to the case of the complainant because in this receipt no Aerocem Senocem has been written and even no mixture ratio and method of application has been mentioned, therefore being immaterial it is being discarded. Further learned counsel for the Ops has also produced on report Annexure R4 i.e. compliance report wherein it has been mentioned that as per the complaint of the complainant, batch No.31365 was re-evaluated and no such shade variation and patches were found and even the complaint was also not found genuine, therefore, we are of the considered view that the present complaint deserves dismissal.

7.                          On the basis of above mentioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service at all or any unfair trade practice, on the part of any of the Ops, as alleged, so as to make any of them liable to any extent in this matter. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances stated above.  All the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  This order be uploaded, forthwith, on the website of this Commission as per rules for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                          

Dated: 08.04.2024

                                                                                                        

         

 

 

          (K.S.Nirania)                  (Harisha Mehta)                 (Rajbir Singh)                       Member                              Member                              President