BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 564-13

Date of Institution : 13.8.2013

Date of Decision : 19.3.2015

Pinkesh K.Anand S/o late Sh. Narinder Nath Anand R/o 544, Katra Sufaid, Amritsar

...Complainant

Versus

1. Proprietor/Partner of M/s. Wadhawa Trading Corporation Merchant/Dealers in Paints, Enamels and Wall Putty, Wadhwa Mansion, Jangi Shivala, Amritsar
2. Manager/Incharge, J.K.Cement Limited , Kamla Towers, Kanpur 208001 (UP)

Opposite Parties.

Complaint under section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present : For the complainant : Sh. Rajat Anand, Advocate

    For opposite party No.1 : Sh. Dinesh Shrivastava, Advocate

              For opposite party No.2 : Sh. Rajan Sanyal, Advocate

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Pinkesh K Anand under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased wall putty, paint and other material from Opposite Party No.1 in the month of October, 2012 vide  various bills issued by Opposite Party No.1. At the time of purchasing the goods, the complainant specifically demanded from Opposite Party No.1 the good quality of the wall putty which is the brand of Opposite Party No.2. The complainant spent huge money like labour, polish, fevicol, turpentine oil and many other expenses which the complainant has incurred alongwith purchase and use of wall putty on the walls of his residence and office. At the time of selling of above said material, Opposite Party No.1 assured the complainant that the above said wall putty is of good quality and absolutely damp proof, but only after the expiry of two months, the wall putty and paint started leaving the walls and showed big blisters and all the walls  on which the aforesaid material has been used became completely damaged. The complainant spent total sum of Rs. 17450/- including every thing, but all his money spent became waste and worthless as all the material supplied by Opposite Party No.1 is of bad  quality and did not fulfill  the assurance as given by Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.17450/- alongwith interest @ 10% per annum.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 supplied sealed packed packets of the material of wall putty of J.K.Wall Putty as demanded by the complainant and it is the product of Opposite Party No.2 and if the material had any defect, then the liability is only of Opposite Party No.2. Moreover, J.K.Wall Putty is manufactured by an old and reputed White Cement Manufacturing Company using innovative as well as latest technology conforming to national and international standard. J.K.Wall Putty is of a good quality product manufactured by an experienced White Cement Manufacturing Company on latest computerized techniques. The goods were purchased by he complainant in October, 2012 and complaint is made on 12.2.2013 after the lapse of 4 months. Moreover, if there was any manufacturing defect in the material/ J.K.White Putty  that is the liability of the company and not the replying Opposite Party No.1.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complaint is legally not maintainable in the eyes of law. Opposite Party No.2 is one of the most trusted brand as manufacturer inter-alia of wall putty. The manufacturing process passes through strict quality control by the top trained specialist professionals of the field and hence accredited with the quality standards specified by the Bureau of Indian Standards. The complainant himself did not allow the expert of the Opposite Party No.2 to visit the site for inspection and to collect the sample and to see the painting process adopted by the complainant. The complainant acted hostile ad ruthlessly arrogant. The complainant has not followed the clear instructions/ guidelines to use wall putty mentioned on the each bag of J.K.Wall Putty. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C22, affidavit of Sh.Sarabjit Kaur Anand Ex.C23, photographs Ex.C24 to Ex.C37 and postal receipt Ex.C38.
5. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Bhajan Lal Wadhwa Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party. Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dinesh Sharma Ex.OP2/1 and documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/18 and closed the evidence on behalf of  Opposite Party No.2.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that  complainant purchased Wall Putty, paint and other material from opposite party No.1 in October 2012 for the purpose of painting of walls in the residence and office of the complainant. The complainant alleges that he spent huge money on labour, polish, fevicol, turpentine oil, etc. and used the wall putty on the walls of his residence and office. Opposite party has assured the complainant that the wall putty is of good quality and absolutely damp proof. After the expiry of two months of the use of the wall putty purchased from the opposite party, the wall putty and paint started leaving the walls and showed big blisters. The walls on which the aforesaid material has been used, became completely damaged. The complainant stated that he spent a sum of Rs. 17450/- on the aforesaid material but all his money spent became useless/worthless due to this fact that material supplied by opposite party No.1 is of bad quality and did not fulfill the assurance given by opposite parties No.1 & 2. The complainant approached the opposite parties No.1 & 2 and explained the whole position but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant sent letter to the opposite party dated 12.2.2013 Ex.C-2, then opposite party No.1 approached the complainant and assured that the problem of complainant will be solved within no time. Even thereafter,  the opposite party did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. Whereas the case of opposite party No.2 is that on receipt of the complaint from the complainant, opposite party No.2 sent expert to the complainant but the complainant did not allow the expert of opposite party No.2 to inspect the site and to collect the sample and to see the painting process adopted by the complainant and did not allow the expert to prepare inspection report. The complainant has not followed the clear instructions/guidelines to use the wall putty mentioned on each bag of J.K. Wall Putty. Even the dealer stockist or retailer also provide leaflets/brochures/pamphlets having guidelines/instructions regarding the use of the wall putty. The complainant has not followed to said guidelines/instructions. Opposite party No.2 produced on record the copy of guidelines of J.K. Wall Putty Ex.OP2/3 on record. The alleged dampness of paint was caused because of ill advised painting work and faulty support system applied by the contractor engaged by the complainant. So the complainant himself is responsible for the outcome of the same. The wall putty of same type was also supplied/sold by opposite party No.2 to various customers/users and there was absolutely no complaint with regard to the quality of wall putty of the said batch. The photographs produced by the complainant prove that there was some peeling off paint because of fact that surface was not properly prepared . The old paint was not removed properly, Peeling off was due to efflorescence i.e there was a noticeable quality of saltpeter (Shora) in the bricks of the wall which technically speaking absorbs moisture from the air or from the hind portion of bricks, as a result thereof effected bricks did not hold the putty thereupon. As per the photographs produced by the complainant there is some area situated nearby the sewerage and water pipe, was damaged and all other walls are not damaged. As the complainant did not follow the instructions/guidelines for the use of wall putty as a result of which the aforesaid problem occured. So the complainant himself is at fault that is why he did not allow the technical person of opposite party No.2 to inspect the premises in question. Whereas, vide order dated 26.4.2014, this Forum directed the complainant to allow the expert witness of the Opposite Party to check and test the premises in question and the Opposite Parties  were directed to produce the report as well as expert witness in this Forum on 10.7.2014. Resultantly, Sh.Dinesh Sharma, Technical Expert who is qualified Engineer having degree of BE (Civil), submitted his report Ex.OP2/16 alongwith photographs Ex.OP2/9 to Ex.OP2/15 and filed his affidavit Ex.Op2/8 which fully proves that Phenomenon of efflorescence normally takes place at  skirting level due to suction of ground water/ side penetration with impurities (salt) present either in sand, water, earth, bricks, slurry, etc. This efflorescence on plastered wall, during initial few months may cause problem of peeling off/ inadequate adhesion of any surface coating. Similarly, if the old paint/ lime wash was not removed properly before the application of putty, the phenomenon of peeling off may occur as is in the present case. This report remained unchallenged.   Ld.counsel for opposite party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2 qua the complainant.
9. Whereas the case of opposite party No.1 is that opposite party No.1 supplied sealed packet of material of wall putty of J.K.Wall Putty to the complainant as per his demand. So it is the product of opposite party No.2 and if material had any defect, then it is the liability of opposite party No.2 only and not of opposite party No.1. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 qua the complainant.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased wall putty  and other materials from Opposite Party No.1 in October, 2012 for the purpose of painting of walls of his residence and office. He used wall putty on the wall of his residence and office. However, after the   expiry of two months of the use of wall putty, the wall putty and paint started leaving the walls and showed big blisters and all the walls  were damaged, as a result of which, the complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 17450/- due to the material supplied by Opposite Party No.1 which was of bad  quality and did not fulfill the assurance as given by Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2. We have gone through the photographs of the site produced by the complainant Ex.C2 to Ex.C11 and Ex.C24 to Ex.C37 and the broacher of the Opposite Party Ex.C14 vide which the Opposite Party has given assurance that wall putty is damp resistant and provides a smooth finish. The plea of the complainant is that he applied the wall putty on the walls of his residence and office. However, after the expiry of 2 months of the use of wall putty, said wall putty and paint started leaving the walls and showed big blisters. The complainant alleged that he approached the Opposite Parties  and explained whole position, but the Opposite Parties  did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Whereas the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that they sent their expert to the residence/ office of the complainant, but the complainant did not allow the expert of Opposite Party No.2 to inspect the site, to collect the sample and to see the painting process adopted by the complainant. He did not allow the expert to prepare the inspection report. Resultantly, vide order dated 24.6.2014 passed by this Forum, the complainant was directed to allow the expert witness of the Opposite Party No.2 to check and test the premises in question and the Opposite Party No.2 was directed to produce the report as well as expert witness in this Forum. Resultantly,  Sh.Dinesh Sharma, qualified engineer of Opposite Party No.2 visited the spot and inspected the site in the presence of the complainant as well as counsel for the parties and he submitted his report Ex.OP2/16 in which he submitted that construction of the house is more than 25 years old. Wall putty was purchased 2 to 3 pouches of 5 Kg only which is sufficient to cover 200 square feet of wall/ ceiling area which shows that wall putty has been applied as a treatment only on badly affected poor quality plaster without applying cement plaster on suffered  areas, whereas wall putty application should be done on treated and a well prepared plaster surface which is not in this case. The condition of the plasters of the wall of the residence/ office of the complainant is very poor and plaster in those areas is badly affected by he phenomenon of efflorescence (salt peter or shora) and plaster can be removed by the slightest touch of fingers. Phenomenon of peeling off was visible due to improper surface preparation as old lime paint was not removed properly before the applications of putty, which is a pre-requisite for any cement based wall putty application. Wall putty application  has been done directly on the existing old lime wash coat, which is not recommended and is clearly mentioned in the technical literature available on the website of M/s.J.K.Cement Limited. Due to this reason fresh applied wall putty had no proper adhesion with the plastered wall. Walls on the  ground floor varandha area are very badly effected by the shora (efflorescence) which attacks the plaster and reduces its strength, makes it rough and  salt like powder  can be seen on the plastered/ painted surface. As per the technical literature  of the Opposite Party, wall putty provides damp resistance smooth finish, which means resistance to water in humid air & not physical water contacts/ leakages. Physical water contact or leakage is responsible for the phenomenon of efflorescence. Wall putty coating is a very thin coating which acts as a base coat to the paint and therefore, right surface preparation is utmost important to ensure good performance of the product. The expert gave following conclusion in his report.  “Phenomenon of efflorescence normally takes place at  skirting level due to suction of ground water/ side penetration with impurities (salt) present either in sand, water, earth, bricks, slurry, etc. This efflorescence on plastered wall, during initial few months may cause problem of peeling off/ inadequate adhesion of any surface coating. Similarly, if the old paint/ lime wash was not removed properly before the application of putty, the phenomenon of peeling off may occur.” This report has been duly proved by Sh.Dinesh Sharma, Civil Engineer through his affidavit Ex.Op2/8. This report of expert Ex.OP2/16 remained unrebutted and unchallenged. So, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant did not apply wall putty after preparing plaster surface fully well for the application of the wall putty and it started leaving walls due to shora (efflorescence). Moreover, the complainant could not produce any evidence that the material prepared/ manufactured and supplied by he Opposite Parties  to the complainant was defective nor the complainant could produce any report from any technical expert/ mechanic to prove that wall putty supplied by the Opposite Parties to the complainant was not containing proper elements or it was not damp resistant. Resultantly, the alleged failure of damp resistance of putty was caused because of ill advice paint work applied by the contractor engaged by the complainant who applied the wall putty without making proper survey for the application of the wall putty. As such, we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.      
11. Resultantly the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 19.03.2015.                                                    Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                              President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                               Member