BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 111 of 2014
Date of Institution : 13.08.2014.
Date of Decision : 21.9.2016
Vijay Kumar, aged 48 years son of Shri Tarsem Lal, resident of Gali Dr. Inderjit Wali, opp. Hathi Park, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Mukesh Kumar son of Shri Rama Shankar Singh, resident of Near Krishna Resort, village Moriwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. M/s National Paints, Janta Hospital Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Proprietor.
3. M/s Gupta Paints, Subhash Chowk, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its proprietor.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.S.Pipal, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh. J.D. Garg, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
Sh. Abhishek Jain, Advocate for the opposite party No.3.
ORDER
Case of complainant in brief, is that opposite party no.1 took contract of applying Plaster of Paris (hereinafter called as wall putti) at the house of complainant for Rs.45,000/- including the cost of wall putti/ material and assured that he will use J&K wall putti and started the said work. The op no.1 supplied copies of bills of wall putti to the complainant i.e. one bill No.6649 dated 23.4.2014 issued by op no.2 for Rs.6750/- and another bill No.0030 dated 13.5.2014 issued by op no.3 for Rs.4800/- for purchase of material. However, the wall putti applied by op no.1 started leaving the place after 2-3 days of its application. On noticing the same, complainant raised a protest with op no.1 and asked him to supply the empty bags of wall putti and then he supplied the empty bag of wall putti used by him. The complainant noticed that there was difference in packing of same brand. The complainant then felt suspicion and he inquired about the nature of such wall putti from some expert who stated that the wall putti used by op no.1 is duplicate. He further came to know that op no.1 in active collusion and connivance with ops No.2 & 3 purchased duplicate wall putti and applied the same at his premises. He was expecting that after application of the wall putti, his premises will give good looking but due to application of duplicate wall putti which left places from several places, his premises started giving bad look. The complainant got inspected his premises from some other expert person, who stated that the wall putti will have to be removed and new wall putti will be applied and wall putti applied is wastage and that if paint is applied on the same, the same will not survive. On the protest being raised to op no.1 in this regard, he threatened him that he will file a false labour case against him and complainant will be subjected to unbearable pains and sufferings. The complainant has suffered financial loss as well as mental harassment due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint with a direction to op no.1 to refund the amount of Rs.45,000/- charged by him and opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement stating therein that complainant had appointed him on daily wages at the rate of Rs.500/- per day for applying wall putti. The material was purchased by complainant himself and answering op had no concern with the material as alleged in the complaint. The answering op alongwith his three other companions had done the labour work at the house of complainant. The complainant had sent him to bring the wall putti from the shops of ops No.2 & 3 and he brought the same on behalf of complainant and they issued the said bills. The answering op used the wall putti as brought by complainant himself and done his work with full honesty. After completion of the work, when he demanded his labour of Rs.48,000/-, then the complainant started to show the alleged defects in the wall putti and has filed present false complaint. The answering op has filed a complaint against the complainant in the Labour Court and after that complainant has filed the present complaint. The used wall putti is original and is not duplicate. Remaining contents have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 in his separate written statement has averred that op no.2 is dealer of M/s S.S. Enterprises Near Nirankari Bhawan Dabra Chowk, Hisar who is the authorized distributor of J.K. Wall Putti and op no.2 had purchased J.K. Wall Putti from him vide invoice No.0007 dated 17.2.2014 and said distributor is necessary party who is not impleaded by the complainant. The assertion of the complainant that op no.2 had supplied duplicate wall putti to op no.1 is wrong and incorrect.
4. Opposite party no.3 in his separate written statement has averred that op no.3 is dealer of J.K. White Cement Works, Gottan District Nagore (Rajasthan) which is the authorized distributor/ manufacturer of J.K. Wall Putti and op no.3 had purchased J.K. Wall Putti vide bill dated 11.5.2014 from said manufacturer. Said manufacturer is necessary party who is not impleaded by the complainant. The assertion of the complainant that op no.3 had supplied duplicate wall putti to op no.1 is wrong and incorrect. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill dated 23.4.2014 Ex.C2, copy of bill dated 13.5.2014 Ex.C3, copies of statements in Labour Court as Ex.C4 and Ex.C5. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 has tendered affidavit as Ex.R1, copy of bill dated 17.2.2014 Ex.R2. OP No.3 tendered his affidavit Ex.R3, bill dated 11.5.2014 Ex.R4. OP no.1 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RW1/A, copy of complaint filed before Labour Court as Ex.RW1/B.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. The complainant has placed on file copy of bill No.6649 dated 23.4.2014 as Ex.C2 which is in the name of Mukesh Kumar opposite party no.1 and same is issued by opposite party no.2 for an amount of Rs.6750/- for purchase of 15 bags of J.K. Wall putti. Then there is another bill dated 13.5.2014 Ex.C2 issued by opposite party no.3 in favour of op no.1 for a sum of Rs.4800/- for purchase of six bags of 40 Kg. each of J.K. wall putti. The version of the opposite party no.1 that complainant himself purchased the material/ wall putti cannot be looked into in view the bills in his name because if the complainant had bought the same, then there was no occasion for the ops No.2 & 3 to issue bills in the name of contractor i.e. opposite party no.1. However, there is nothing on record to prove that wall putti is duplicate. It is pertinent to mention here that Sh. Kapil Sharma, Advocate was appointed as Local Commission on the application of op no.1 upon which counsel for complainant made no objection. Said Local Commission in the presence of the complainant and Op no.1 inspected the house of the complainant and has submitted his report that there was no damage to the walls of ground floor and first floor, which fact was admitted by both the parties and he noticed that 2/3rd i.e. about 66% portion of the walls of second floor where the putti was applied developed cracks. The Local Commission has also submitted a photographs (Annexures-I & II) showing the cracks on the walls. Had there been any defect in the wall putti or same was duplicate, then the walls of ground floor and first floor would have developed cracks. Cracks appeared due to fault of workmanship of opposite party no.1. So, in our view, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.45,000/- charged by opposite party no.1 from him.
8. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we accept the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 and direct him to refund Rs.45,000/- charged from the complainant within a period of 45 days, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. However, the complaint qua opposite parties No.2 & 3 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:21.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
