The complainant and opposite party entered into an oral agreement in which the complainant hired the services of opposite party as a painter for painting his house for a consideration of Rs.11,000/- including the cost of the material. Opposite party told the complainant that he is a skilled painter. The opposite party agreed that the painting work will be done with high quality plastic emelsion paint. The opposite party received Rs.11,000/- and started the work on 4.04.2006 and completed the same on May 2006. The opposite party used low quality paint instead of plastic emelsion paint and used no skill for perfection. After one month the paint was stired down from the walls. The paint was flowed down due to rain water. The complainant asked the opposite party to repaint the same using good plastic emelsion paint. But he denied and an advocate notice was issued noticing all these matters. Opposite party received the same but no effect done from his part to make good the loss of the complainant. A compromise talk was done by the complainant but there was no effect. Hence alleging deficiency in service the complaint has been filed for a direction to repaint the complainant's residence.<br /> <br /> 2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is stated that the complaint will not come under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is not a consumer and it is not a consumer dispute. So the complaint will not sustain. The opposite party did not create any agreement with the complainant. No breach of contract is done by the opposite party. The opposite party did not reply to the notice issued by the complainant because the lawyer notice issued was lost from the hand of opposite party. The complainant used the opposite party very much without any complaint and the work was perfectly completed by the opposite party. In order to escape from giving wages to the opposite party, the complainant filed a false complaint before the Forum. The opposite party was only a painting labourer of the complainant. The complaint is a fabricated and a false one and hence the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party is not liable for any compensation from the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence conists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and Exts.P1 to P6 (series) were marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 5. The POINT :- The opposite party raised a contention that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint will not come under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is stated that there is no agreement or contract between the complainant and the opposite party. The complainant examined as PW1 and 2 witnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3 who are the neighbours of the complainant. PW2 and PW3 supported the complainant.They delivered that there was an oral agreement between the complainant and the opposite party for painting the complainant's house. They both witnessed the same. The opposite party also admitted that the opposite party was a painting labourer of the complainant and payment also was done by the complainant. So it is absolutely clear that the complainant hired the services of the opposite party and so the complainant is a consumer. Then the dispute arises only on the fact that whether there is any deficiency in service of opposite party, whether the painting of the opposite party was defective or was damaged after one month by rain water, and if so, how much. Ext.P1 is the office copy of the lawyer notice issued by the complainant. Exts.P2 and P3 are the postal receipts and postal AD cards respectively. It means that there was no dispute at that time for the opposite party against the complainant's avernments. Exts.P5 and P6(series) are the negative and photographs of the building of the complainant, respectively. In that it is clear that the front outside wall of the building is partially washed out due to rain. The opposite party did not cross examined as well as challenged Ext.P5 and Ext.P6(series). So it is clear that there is a gross deficiency in the service of the opposite party. No commission was taken by the complainant. No evidence adduced to show that the painting done in the interior area are defective. The opposite party neither tried to produce the bill nor take steps to make the paint shop owner as the opposite party array, if the paint purchased by the opposite party is defective. So we think that it is fit to compensate the defective work done by the opposite party in the outer portion of the building and Rs.2,000/- as the cost of the petition.<br /> <br /> In the resut, the opposite party is directed to repaint the front side walls of the complainant's residential building within 2 months with quality plastic emelsion paint with due care. The opposite party must meet the expenses of the materials for the same. Otherwise the opposite party must pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of the petition within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default. <br />