DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 31^st  day of October, 2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                                                                                                         Date of Filing: 15/06/2022    

     CC/106/2022

K.S.Noorjahan,

W/o.T.Muhammed Hamsa,

Thushara (Thazhathethil House),

East Ottapalam, Ottapalam Post,

Palakkad – 679 101                                                               -           Complainant

(By Adv.P.N.Balagopalan & R.Aswathy)

                                                                                    Vs

1.         M/s.Asian Paints Ltd.,

            Rep.by its Managing Director,

            6A, Shanti Nagar, P.O.Box No.#6818

            Vakola Pipeline Lane,             Vakola Santacruz (East),

            Mumbai – 400 055

2.         The Regional Manager,

            Asian Paints Ltd.,

            Regional Office, Nadakkavu, Calicut

3.         The Area Manager,

            Asian Paints Ltd., Devi Buildings,

            Vyttila, Palarivattom Byepass,

            Ernakulam – 680 025

4.         Raghu

            Sales Superintendent,

            Asian Paints Ltd., XXVIII/782A,

            Padavarad, Kuttanellur (PO),

            Ollur, Thrissur – 680 014                                           -           Opposite parties

(OPs set exparte)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. Inorder to refurbish her house, the complainant purchased and applied Apex Ultima Emulsion for exterior walls of her house and Asian Apcolite Paints/Enamel for windows, being enamored by the advertisements aired by the opposite parties, who are the manufacturers of the said paint. To her dismay, after a few weeks of application, the paint developed fungus and lost its sheen. The residence building lost its elegant look. Aggrieved by the lack of quality of the paint, complainant has filed this complaint seeking Rs. 40,545/- being the cost together with interest and compensation and cost of these proceedings.
2. Opposite parties, except O.P.4, a staff of the opposite parties in his personal capacity, received notice and entered appearance on 18/07/2022. But they did not file version and was set ex-parte on 01/09/2022, after giving them ample time to file version.
3. Complaint filed proof affidavit and 6 documents, which were marked as Ext. A1 to A6 documents. A6 is a set of 4 photographs.
4. Since this is a case wherein the opposite parties had received notice, but failed to defend the matter, we presume that the pleadings are admitted. Further Ext. A5 is a reply notice issued by the 1^st opposite party herein to Ext. A1 notice issued by the counsel for the complainant. Contents in Ext. A1 are very much same as that of the contents of the memorandum of complainant. Opposite party 1 does not repudiate the allegation that the paints were manufactured by the 1^st opposite party herein. Hence the pleading that the paint used by the complainant is manufactured by the opposite parties stands admitted.
5. The opposite parties have not repudiated complaint pleadings by way of version or by adducing cogent evidence. Ext. A5 can only be a piece of evidence and cannot be taken to be pleadings. Eventhough the complainant has not taken out a Commission to ascertain the factum of damage to the paint, contents of Ext. A5, in the absence of solid refusal, would prove that the paint was not successful in preventing growth of fungus and fading of colour.
6. Fact of purchase of paint, its application and subsequent damage stands prima facie proved. But the extent of damage, purchase price and the cost it would take to rectify the complaint stands not proved.
7. Hence balancing the aforestated aspects, we order as follows:

a.         Painting is defective, for which the complainant is entitled to a compensation, which we fix at Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only).

b.         The complainant is entitled to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only)

c.         The complainant is not entitled to cost of the paint.

d.         No liability is cast of Opposite party 4.

e.         Opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 will share joint and several liability.

f.          If this order is not complied within 45 days of receipt, the opposite shall be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 250/- per mensem or part thereof to the complainant till date of final payment.

                        Pronounced in open court on this the 31^st   day of October,  2022.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

        Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                       Member                              

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 series  – Lawyer’s notice dated 3/2/22 alongwith postal receipts  

Ext.A2   -  Postal acknowledgement of notice received by OP2.

Ext.A3  – Postal acknowledgement of notice received by OP3.     

Ext.A4   –  Undelivered lawyer’s notice issued to OP4.   

Ext.A5 – Reply to Ext.A1 issued by OP1.

Ext.A6 series – Photographs 4 Nos.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Court Exhibit:   Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.