Dt.25.03.2015
JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER
The present appeal is directed against the Order No. 02. Dated 22.04.2014, in case No. CC/244/2014, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I , Kolkata in case No. CC/244/2014, whereby the complaint has been rejected .
The Complainant’s case, in brief , was as follows:
The Complainant sometime in 2011 used the product of Berger Paints on the exterior wall of his house by procuring such painting material from the local dealer, namely, M/s Supreme Paints, on different dates and spent over one lakh rupees towards painting of the wall of the house. The paint had the warranty period of 7 years from the date of use. But, the paint of the exterior wall faded away and the Complainant sent an e-mail for taking immediate remedial measure. One representative of the OP/ M/s Berger Paints India Ltd. visited the house of the Complainant and acknowledged the deficiency about the quality of used paint. They also assured that repainting of the house would be done at an early date at company’s costs. After several requests, Mr. Bhaskar Dasgupta, General Manager, visited the house of the Complainant in the month of February 2013. But no rectification of the defects was done excepting that the OP requested the Complainant to furnish some documents which was complied. A legal notice was served upon the OP on 12.04.2013. Still no action was taken by the OP. Again a legal notice was served on 22.08.2013. OP by their letter dated 09.09.2013 (mistakenly noted as 09.03.2013 by the Ld. Forum in the impugned order) informed that they would provide material and compensate for the labour charges at the market rate for two coats of painting on the affected area which would be a maximum of Rs.3/-only per sq.ft. The Complainant approached the office of the Assistant Director , Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices , Kolkata ( South ). The issue was discussed at a tripartite mediation meeting held on 21.02.2014 in the office of the said Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, but because of irreconcilability of views taken by the parties concerned, mediation failed and a formal Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Forum below.
Ld. Forum below having heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Complainant and upon scrutiny of the materials on record observed that though Deputy Company Secretary of the OP by their letter dated 09.03.2013 (to be correctly read as 09.09.2013) conveyed that they would provide the materia for repainting and bear labour charges upon production of quotation by the Complainant from the painting contractor, no response from the complainant was sent. Accordingly, Ld. Forum below took the view that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint was rejected.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Order of the Ld. Forum below, the Complainant-turned -Appellant has come up before this Commission with a prayer for direction, upon setting aside the impugned order, to pass orders about repainting of the entire exterior wall measuring about 6,000 sq.ft. of his house at company’s costs and also to pay a compensation including costs and damages of Rs. 3 lakh .
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that Ld. Forum below without going into the merit of the case in detail rejected the complaint and that too without hearing the O.P. and asking for evidence in support of respective parties. Ld. Forum below failed to appreciate that the OPs did not give their consent to repaint the entire exterior wall of the house of the Complainant which was rightly demanded from the Complainant’s side. Inspite of furnishing quotations along with Advocate’s letter dated 24.05.2013 as required by the OP vide their letter dated 3rd May 2013, the OPs agreed only to compensate for the affected areas which was not acceptable to the Complainant. Ld. Forum below ignored to have any look at the quotations furnished and hurried to conclude that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part as the OP offered to repaint the affected areas of the exterior wall with the product of their company. The Complainant was asked to submit revised quotations vide letter dated 09.09.2013 which the Complainant never replied to and such fact has been appreciated by the Ld. Forum below . The impugned order has been rightly passed and the same deserves to be upheld.
Decision with Reasons
We have heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for both parties and perused the materials on record and the order of the Ld. Forum below dated 22.04.2014.
Ld. Forum below appears to have disposed of the complaint without following the procedure on admission of complaint as provided under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act . The said order does not reflect the material facts produced by the Complainant . Ld. Forum’s view that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is not supported by any discussion on the material points at issue as raised by the Complainant/Appellant and for that purpose both parties should have been given opportunities of being heard with necessary evidence in their support.
We are constrained to hold that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and procedural inadequacy.
Going by the above discussion we are of the considered view that the matter should have been disposed of after due consideration of the merit of the complaint and the issues as contained in the petition of complaint. As such ,the impugned order needs to be set aside. In the result, the appeal succeeds . Hence,
Ordered
that the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest . The impugned order is set aside. The matter be sent back on remand to its original complaint file for fresh order by the Ld. Forum below after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties who may adduce necessary evidence in their own support. There shall be no order as to costs.
