Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

305/2011

S.Muruga & Others - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Sree Ganesh Chemicals Industries - Opp.Party(s)

S.Gunasekaran

09 Oct 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 26.05.2011

                                                                    Date of Disposal            : 09.10.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.305/2011

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 09^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

                                 

1. S. Muruga,

S/o. Mr. Selvaraj,

No.3, Kuppuswamy street,

Ambedkar Nagar,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

2. L. Murugan,

S/o. Mr. V. Loganathan,

No.3, Thiruvalluvar Street,

Ambedkar Nagar,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

3. G. Arun @ Arun Kumar,

S/o. Mr. G. Ganapathy,

No.20, Saiva Mudali 6^th Street,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

4. E. Balu & Balasubramanian,

No.45/A, Muthaiya Mudali Street,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

5. T. Kabali,

No.33, Muthaiya Mudali Street,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.  

 

6. R. Raji,

S/o. Radhakrushnan,

No.76, Chellammal Thottam,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

7. P. Vijaya Kumar,

S/o. Parthasarathy,

No.6/11, Saiva Muthiya Mudali 5^th Street,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

8. A. Dinakaran,

S/o. Mr. Arasu Dasan,

No.8, Ruthar Puram,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                    .. Complainants.

                                                                                            ..Versus..

 

 

1. M/s. Sree Ganesh Chemical Industries,

Rep. by its Proprietor,

Plot No.280/4A-1B, Kottivakkam,

Chennai – 600 096.

 

2. M/s. R.M.S. Hardwares,

Rep. by its Proprietor,

Old No.176, New No.56, V.M. Street,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.                                              ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainants         : M/s. S. Gunasekaran & others

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party  : M/s. M. Jayasree

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party : M/s. R. Dhanalakshmi

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation to each complainant with cost of Rs.5,000/- to each complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainants submit that they are the labourers working for daily wages with a carpenter.  The complainants submit that they have used to polish the wood materials at the final stage.   The complainants submit that they are not qualified and expert in polish and thinner.  They purchased ‘Chennai Lac Polish and Subhlak D-13, NC Thinner trade mark / Brand / Label of Polish cane and thinner Bottle from the retail shop of the 2^nd opposite party, M/s. R.M.S. Hardwares on 09.05.2011.   The complainants submit that the complainant suffered from dermatitis in the right hand and fingers due to the bad condition of wood polish and thinner having chemical materials.   The complainants were taken treatment as out-patient in the Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai.  The complainants submit that no proper instructions were given for utilization of varnish, polish and thinner.  The loss or injury suffered due to defects in goods varnish complaint against or alleged deficiency in service to a large number of consumers.   Thus the complainants suffered from dermottology.   The right hand and five fingers were affected and contracted dermatitis due to bad condition of wood polish and thinner.  In the polish and thinner container, no where mentioned how to use the chemical materials.   The petitioners are very poor.   They all went to the Government Royapettah Hospital for treatment.   The Doctor also mentioned it is due to varnish contact.  Due to the defects of polish and thinner bottle, the complainant suffered and thrown out of job till the healings. The complainants suffered even for livelihood and for bread winner by contact of Dermatitis.  They suffered a lot both mentally and financially.  The complainants faced hardships and mental agony due to disease of Dermotology in the right hand of discolour.   Their livelihood was totally spoiled.   The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 1^st opposite party states that the ‘Chennai Lac Polish’ is the main and necessary party to the above proceedings has not been included as a party in the above proceedings.  The 1^st opposite party states that he is not a manufacturer of ‘Chennai Lac Polish’ as alleged by the complainants.  The 1^st opposite party states that he is only a manufacturer of Nitrocellouse Thinner and the brand name of his product is ‘Shubhalk’.   The 1^st opposite party states that his product comes out from his industry to open market after undergoing through checks and Strigent Test called ‘PH’ test.  His product is widely acclaimed for its class and quality.   The 1^st opposite party states that M/s. R.M.S. Hardwares, Royapettah is one of his customers who also sell the 1^st opposite party’s product in retail.   The 1^st opposite party states that he supplies his product, Nitrocellouse Thinner to all his customers who are retailers along with Material Safety Data Sheet and instruction card. 

3.     The 1^st opposite party states that the Nitrocellouse Thinner manufactured in his industry contains a mixture of aliphatic ic/Aromatic organic solvent composing Toulene, Ethyl Acelate DAA NBA and mixed solvents.    Though it is a mixture of so many chemicals, it is not dangerous to skin or other health condition if not used extensively.   Even if the thinner gets into contact with the eyes or skin it can be thoroughly rinsed with water which will bring to normalcy.   The said product is not at all harmful to health on normal use.   Furthermore, thinner is not used directly and it is only used as a mixing agent with paints, polishes, varnish and other chemical colouring agents made of iron oxide like red oxide, yellow oxide etc. according to the individual requirements.  Whileso, it is surprising as well unbelievable to  note the version of the complainants who are said to the labourers and have been well acquainted and expertized with the wood polish work, had involved themselves into trouble by getting their hands and skin in to direct contact with the polish and varnish and got injured in the same.   The 1^st opposite party states that the said injury was caused due to the use of alleged polish with thinner, the mistake would not be on the part of the persons who manufactured or supplied the said product but it can only be on the part of the complainants who have used the same improperly, carelessly and negligently.   The 1^st opposite party states that since he is not the manufacturer of Chennailac Polish and he is also in no way connected with the said polish and his thinner product too would not cause injury to the skin at all, much less inflammation as alleged and in the past nine years since the commencement of his business, he never ever had received even a single complaint about his product. The ulterior motive behind the wrong allegations appears only to tarnish the image, reputation and goodwill of the 1^st opposite party in the market apart from getting monetary gain illegally.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 2^nd opposite party states that he did not admit that the complainants are all labourers of daily wages with a carpenter.   The 2^nd opposite party does not know about their position and their works, duties etc.    They do not know whether the complainants purchased the Chennai Lac Polish and Shubhlak D-13, NC Thinner Trade Mark/brand/ Label of Polish and Thinner Bottle.   The 2^nd opposite party was carrying on business for the past 25 to 30 years.   So far they never received any complaints from the customers.  Admittedly, the complainants stated in the complaint in paragraph No.4 that they are not qualified and expert in this field which itself proves that they are not doing this work at all.  No human would use the bare hands dip into the polish or paint whatever they name it.   It is vehemently denied that the right hand and five fingers were affected and contracted dermatitis due to bad condition of wood polish and thinner.   The allegation that the polish and thinner contains chemical compound which is injurious to human skin etc, when they themselves admit that they are not educated not an expert then how they conclude that the chemical compound etc.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainants have filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A18 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 are marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.  Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party is filed and no document is filed on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.

6.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for each as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards legal expenses as prayed for with cost?

7.      On point:-

The complainants and 2^nd opposite party filed their respective written arguments.  The 1^st opposite party has not filed any written argument.  But the opposite parties 1 & 2 advanced their oral argument. Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The complainants pleaded and contended that they are the labourers working for daily wages with a carpenter.  But none of the carpenter’s name disclosed in this case.  Further the contention of the complainants is that they have used to polish the wood materials at the final stage.  Further the contention of the complainants is that they are not qualified and expert in polish and thinner.  They purchased ‘Chennai Lac Polish and Subhlak D-13, NC Thinner trade mark / Brand / Label of Polish cane and Thinner Bottle from the retail shop of the 2^nd opposite party, M/s. R.M.S. Hardwares on 09.05.2011 as per Ex.A13 to Ex.A17.  But the complainants’ name were not found in the bills.   

8.     Further the contention of the complainants is that the complainant suffered from dermatitis in the right hand and fingers due to the bad condition of wood polish and thinner having chemical materials.   But there is no iota of proof in this case.   The complainants were taken treatment as out-patient in the Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai.  Thereby, their livelihood was totally spoiled.  Ex.A5 to Ex.A12 are the out-patient sheets of the complainants 1 to 8 in which it is found that ‘Allergy Contact Dermatitis’ which is happened only due to the direct application of  varnish and thinner proves that the complainants were not followed the due instruction attached to the materials while using as per Ex.B2.  Further the contention of the complainants that no proper instructions were given for utilization of varnish, polish and thinner; is not acceptable in the absence of any evidence.  The complainant also has not taken any steps for expert opinion to prove that the alleged varnish, thinner, polish contained infective chemicals.  There is no M.O. also produced in this Forum in order to prove the deficiency in service are unfair trade practice.  It is also very clear from the records that the complainants are not the experts in varnishing and using / handling the material like varnish, thinner, polish etc.

9.     The contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that it is admitted in the complaint para No.4 that

“The petitioners state that the petitioners are labourers of daily wages with a carpenter.   Their duties are Polishing wood materials after finishing of final and full stage of wood.   The petitioners are not qualified and expert in the quality of the Polish and Thinner”.

proves that they do not know how to use the materials like varnish, thinner, polish etc.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that they have purchased the Chennai Lac Polish and Shubhlak D-13, NC Thinner Trade mark / Brand / Label of Polish cane and Thinner Bottle etc.  But none of the receipt is having their name or carpenter’s name found itself establishes that the receipt was created for the purpose of the case.  It is also seen from the Ex.B6 (S), the bills were given in the name of different companies.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the allegation of dermatitis caused due to the application of varnish, polish, thinner etc is totally negligent on the part of the complainant and has not taken proper care and caution and without any experience proves that there is the negligence on the part of the complainants for which, the opposite parties shall not be held responsible. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 09^th day of October 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANTS’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1		Photo copy of the complainants 1 & 2
Ex.A2		Photo copy of the complainants 3 & 4
Ex.A3		Photo copy of the complainants 5 & 6
Ex.A4		Photo copy of the complainants 7 & 8
Ex.A5		Copy of Out-patient sheet of the 1st complainant
Ex.A6	18.04.2011	Copy of Out-patient sheet of the 2nd complainant
Ex.A7	18.04.2011	Copy of Out-patient sheet of the 3rd complainant
Ex.A8	18.04.2011	Copy of Out-patient sheet of the 4th complainant
Ex.A9	11.05.2011	Copy of Out-patient sheet of the 5th complainant
Ex.A10	18.04.2011	Copy of Out-patient sheet of the 6th complainant
Ex.A11	18.04.2011	Copy of Out-patient sheet of the 7th complainant
Ex.A12	04.05.2011	Copy of Out-patient sheet of the 8th complainant
Ex.A13	03.03.2011 & 21.03.2011	Copy of bills (Memo)
Ex.A14	07.09.2011 & 08.04.2011	Copy of bills (Memo)
Ex.A15	03.05.2011 & 06.05.2011	Copy of bills (Memo)
Ex.A16	25.03.2011 & 09.05.2011	Copy of bills (Memo)
Ex.A17	09.05.2011	Copy of Polish and Thinner purchased cash bills
Ex.A18	22.05.2011	Copy of legal notice sent to the opposite parties 1 & 2

 

1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1		Copy of details of PH paper
Ex.B2		Copy of material Safety Data Sheet
Ex.B3		Copy of Instruction card sticker
Ex.B4	24.06.2011	Copy of reply notice issued by the Counsel for the 1st opposite party
Ex.B5	25.06.2011	Copy of postal receipt
Ex.B6		Copy of invoices

 

2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT