SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint for getting an order directing opposite parties to pay Rs.60,000/- with interest to the complainant towards compensations together with Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
Brief facts of the case are that the complaint purchased paint materials from M/s.Oasis paints and Hard wares, Shakhaz Arcades, OPP. Sangamam Auditorium, Good Shed Road, Thalassery – 670 101 for painting his house in various days commencing from 29/03/2018 to 17/10/2018. The OP No.1 is an authorized dealer of Nippon Paints (India). The OP No.2 is the supplier of painting products in the name and style M/S Oasis Paints and Hard wares. The OP No.1 introduced Nippon Samurai Super acrylite exterior Emulsion as one of the international quality high-tech paint. The exterior were painted with Nippon Samurai Super Acrylite exterior Emulsion and the items were introduced to him as a protector against adverse climatic condition with a warranty of 3 years. The complainant noticed peeling on the exterior of the house, after the completion of painting within 3 months. Some deficiency is like spotting on colour walls were noticed, which facts were brought to the notice OP No.1 by making a direct oral complaint and one technical staff person visited the complainant’s house in 1st week of December 2018. Thereafter, there was no response from OP No.1 or OP No.2. The reply received from OPs in this regard was untenable also. The OP made deficiency in service by giving him sub-standard quality of Nippon paints. The defects were appeared on the exterior walls due to defect in the quality of paint. The paint and paint products supplied to the complainant were of low quality with several quality issues. The peeling off the paint was on account of low quality painted materials. The complainant made oral complaint with the OP No.2. But was no effect. The Jotun paints had given a unique identity and described it as international quality high tech paint and stands as its own. The brand name of the above said paint products were promoted by the company up to promises so made by giving it a royal cult. The above said paint products were used to paint the exterior walls by the complainant for painting in various days commencing from 29/03/2018 ending by 17/10/2018. After the use of the above said paint products, the paint started fading and the same was withered away which used huge loss and mental pain to the complainant. The complainant had paid Rs.44,000/- as labour charge for painting his house. When the fading and peeling off was brought to the notice of the OP No.2, the OP No.2 made an on the spot survey of the damage caused to the complainant and assured him adequate compensation also. The grievance of the complainant was not settled by OP No.1 or OP No.2. After noticing the poor quality, standard and performance of the paint products, the complainant issued a lawyer notice and called upon to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the complainant due to the defect in the paint products of the receipt of the noticed. The OPs No.2 send a reply to the said notice with falls and frivolous contentions. Hence the complaint.
After receiving notice OPs entered appearance through counsel and filed written version. It is contended by OP that it is submitted that the Nippon samurai super acrylite exterior Emulsion is definitely a high quality paint and this OP at the time of distribution of paint instructing the party to apply the same according to the instruction given by the company the same was detailed by the OP No.2 to the complainant at the time of distribution. The averment that the complainant noticed peeling on the exterior of the house, after the completion of painting with in three months. Some deficiencies like spotting on colour walls were noticed, which tack were bought to the notice OP No.1 by making a direct complaint is false and is hereby denied by these respondents. It is also false that the complainant interned the OP NO.1 one technical staff person visited complainant’s house in 1st week of December 2018. Further stated that the defects were appeared due to the low quality of paint, the products low quality paint etc. is false. The averment that the complainant made oral complaint to OP NO.2 is incorrect. These OPs never supplied Jotun paints to the complainant. The labour charge shown is the complaint is exorbitant and is false. The averment the fading and pealing was brought to OP NO.2 made an on the spot survey of damage caused to the complainant and assured him adequate compensation is false. On the drum of the particular item purchased by the complainant is specially given certain instructions, how to apply the paint on exterior walls. And if the said instruction is not followed by the customer it will not get the prescribed quality. If any defect was caused to produce when it is applied the same would have been due to the failure of the complainant is complying the instructions given by the company. If the complainant has complied the instructions as given by the company there would not happen any issue regarding the same. OP submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
Both parties led their evidence. Complainant has filed chief affidavit and documents. He was examined as Pw1 and the documents were marked a sExt.A1 to A5 series on the side of OP, the zonal manager of OP1 has filed his chief affidavit and has been examined as Dw1. Two documents have been marked as Ext.B1 and B2. Both witnesses were subjected to cross-examination by the other party.
After that the learned counsels of both parties filed their respective written argument notes.
Complainant’s case is that he has purchased paint materials from OP No.2 the authorized supplier of painting products in the name and style M/s Oasis paint and Hardwares. OP No.1 is the authorized dealer of Nippon paints. Complainant contended that he approached OP No.2 to purchase paint products to paint his house. They introduced Nippon samurai super Acrylate anterior emulsion paint as one of the international quality high-tech paints and the products are introduced protector against adverse conditions with a warranty of 3 years. The complainant spent huge amount on purchase of paints believing the words of OP No.2. They have supplied Jotun paint products also along with the purchased paints. The OP, promoted the said brand of paint products as a royal cult and guaranteed as India No.1 complete all around International Quality high Tech paint products. The complainant painted his exterior walls with Nippon Samurai Super Acrylate exterior emulsion as instructed by the OP with experienced professional painters having more than 20 years of experienced with the products supplied to him. The complainant noticed peeling on the exterior of the House after the completion of painting within 3 months. Some deficiencies like spotting on colour over walls were also noticed. When the fading and peeling was brought to the notice of OP No.2, the OP No.2 made an on the spot survey of damages caused to the complainant. One of the Technical Staff persons visited the complainant’s house in the first week of December 2018 and assured him adequate compensation. Thereafter, there was no response from the OPs.
Here OP agreed the purchase of paint and its products from OP No.2. The contention raised and its products from OP No.2. The contention raised by OPs is that the complainant applied and used the products contrary to the procedure prescribed by the company. It is contended that there is specific instruction and guidelines for usage of every item of the product supplied by OP No.2 and also in the outside of the bottle. It is stated that complainant has not applied primer as directed by the company and as per the instruction in the outside of the bottle, the second cot should be applied after 8 hours of 1st cot. Further the quantity of water mixed was also not correct. So the chance is that the complainant has not applied the product as per the instruction and direction for use. Here OPs further raised contention at the evidence stage that the complainant applied or used the products contrary to the procedure prescribed by the company and the losses assessed is highly exorbitant. The house was paint with the products supplied by the OP NO.2 with experienced painters. The paint products and its qualities were introduced to the complainant by the OP No.2. He was only a purchaser. The OP NO.2 as supplier has to sell required products to a purchaser which is to be used for the consumer’s purpose. The OP NO.2 has no case that, they have not supplied the paint products to the complainant. Even in their reply notice, they have not denied it. It is the bounden duty of the supplier to introduce the products and narrate and disclose all of its peculiarities to a purchaser. At the time of evidence, they have made version that the items supplied along with paint products are not the one which are not to be used as per procedures of appliance of the paint products supplied. The purchaser is not an expertise in the field of paint products. He categorically deposed that; the paint products were purchased as introduced by the supplier. The supplier ought to have supply products which are to be used with the products they supplied. The employee of the OP NO.1 in his evidence stated that; the products supplied were not the products to be used with their products. Such contentions were not made in the reply notice issued by the OP No.2 or in their version.
Complainant submitted OP2 has not given any information about the using of paint as contended by them. He has purchased the paint product as introduced by the OP NO.2. As a seller of the product, OP No.2 ought to have supply product which were to be used with the paint they supplied. Complainant has pleaded that the paint products were purchased as introduced by the seller and the painters he used for painting are professional painters in the painting field having 20 years of experience and applied paint as instructed by the OPs. According to complainant he had purchased the product as introduced by OP No.2. Complainant submitted that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of OPs in supplying low quality product UKE Jotun paint also and assured that the said brand of paint product as a royal cult and guaranteed as India’s No.1 complete all around international quality high tech paint products. But within 3 months after painting there is perling on the e exterior of the house.
During cross-examination complainant has denied the contention of OP about not using of the product as per the procedures of appliance of the paint products supplied and also denied the contention of non supply of Jotun pain. On analyzing the evidence tendered by OP NO.1 Dw1, it can be seen that OP2 has supplied the paint and oher product to complainant. It is an admitted fact that complainant had purchased paint and product from OP No.2.
Here OP has not proved that the complainant has applied paint against the instructions given by them through any material evidence. Ext.A5 series (photos) shows the peeling on the exterior of the house and also colour were diminished over the walls of the house.
Hence as per the overall evidence, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs by supplying low quality paint and its product to complainant by OP No.2 manufactured by OP No.1 with false assurance and without proper instruction, hence complainant is entitled to get compensation for the mental agony and monetary loss happened.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to complainant towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings of the case. Opposite parties shall comply the order jointly and severally within one month after receiving copy of order, failing which the amount Rs.50,000/- carries interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts
A1- Lawyer notice
A2-Reply notice
A3(series)- Acknowledgment card (2 in No)
A4(series) –Bills (5 in number)
A5(series) Photos(marked with objection)
B1- Application procedure of Nippon paint (marked with objection)
B2- Technical data sheet (subject proof)
Pw1-Complainant
Dw1-Sajithkumar V-Witness of OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
