Haryana

Kurukshetra

10/2018

sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sangeet Paint - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.Sirsla

09 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.10 of 2018.

Date of instt.:11.01.2018. 

                                                                       Date of Decision:9.03.2022.

 

Sunil Kumar s/o Shri Vikram Singh Poonia, r/o H.No.1981/12, Gali No.9, Shanti Nagar, Kurukshetra, Distt. Kurukshetra (136118) Haryana.

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                             Versus

 

1. M/s Sangeet Paints & Hardware Store, Shop No.3, Hotel Pearl Marc Complex Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

 2. Asian Paints Private Limited, registered office at 6A, Shanti Nagar,

    Santacruz    (E)   Mumbai, 400055 through its Managing Director.

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                   

Present:     Shri K.K. Sirsla, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Deepak Sidhana, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sunil Kumar against M/s Sangeet Paints & Hardware Store and another, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that by alluring with the advertisement of the OPs, the complainant purchased items of paints and other necessary instruments regarding paints from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.47,760/- vide cash/credit memos No.9353 dated 16.9.2015 amounting Rs.17,700/-; 9358 dated 19.9.2015 amounting Rs.12,160/-; 9364 dated 19.9.2015 amounting Rs.1600/-; 9393 dated 29.9.2015 amounting Rs.7950/-, 9397 dated 29.9.2015 amounting Rs.8350/- by paying the said amounts in cash to the OP No.1. At the time of purchasing the said items, the OP No.1 assured him that in case any kind of defect occurs in the paints within the guarantee period of seven years, in that case, all amounts received by it, will be returned to the complainant or in other option to reaffirmed all paints at his own cost with extended guarantee period. Now the said paints become fall down from the walls and colour of windows and doors totally in delete conditions just within a period of about one and half years. Thereafter, he visited the shop of OP No.1 and made complaint in this regard, who assured to paints again on the walls and other instruments of the house at own expenses with new one and also assured that he will complaint the higher authority of company in this regard. After waiting for sufficient time, he kept on visiting personally and contacting telephonically the OP No.1, but all in vain and finally the OPs flatly refused to admit his claim. He served legal notice dated 22.2.2017 to the OP No.1. The OPs have harassed the complainant having caused mental shock agony, torture, humiliation due to deficiency in services. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action and jurisdiction. The complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the true & material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. The true & material facts are that the OP No.1 given best quality paints to the complainant but in the house of the complainant there is a heavy content of moisture and there is no fault on the part of the OP No.1. The OP No.1 doing the paints business from the last 30 years and provided best quality paints to the customers without any fault and OP No.1 is selling paint products of Asian Paints Ltd. The products purchased by the complainant are well established products in the market and over a period of years, the customers are using the same and the complainant had purchased the same after being satisfied with the quality of the same. It is further submitted that the products used i.e. Royale Luxury Emulsion or Royale Shyne which was used at on the interior walls of the complainant are not covered under any kind of warranty. It is pertinent to mention here that when the complainant visited with the OP No.1 regarding the complaint, then the OP No.1 was lodged the complaint of the complainant without any delay with OP No.2 bearing complaint No.505138204 dated 15.10.2015. The technical visit was also done by officers of OP No.2 on 29.10.2015 and on inspection observed, the issue reported was due to dampness (due heavy content of moisture) of walls of complainant’s site. The moisture levels were 20,25,40 and even 90 on scale of 0-90. The rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same against the OP No.1.

                Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction. It is stated that in the instant case, high moisture levels of 20,25,40 and even 90 on scale of 0-90 on the moisture meter (an instrument for measuring moisture underneath a surface) were recorded at the complainant’s site. The complainant had repainted the site and had used Damp Block for the moisture issue, but the application was not apt/correct i.e., the Damp Block was not used in sufficient quantity/ was less than the required quantity, due to which, post application of Paint, blisters were formed. The complainant is required to follow certain procedures for painting i.e. to check the surface condition, use proper quantity of products and proper paint application method. But the complainant has failed to follow the same which has resulted in blisters and peeling off. The said issue of blistering in the complainant site was because of heavy content of moisture at the site and the complainant has failed or neglected to apply Damp Block in sufficient quantity and therefore, the OP No.2 is neither responsible nor liable for the claims of the complainant. On receipt of compliant, the OP No.2 registered the complaint on 15.10.2015 vide complaint No.505138204 and attended it promptly. As per procedure, site visit was arranged through its officers to assess the issue. Territory Sales Officer of the OP no.2 visited the site after taking an appointment from the complainant and suggested a technical visit accordingly. The technical visit was done by the officers on 29.10.2015 and on inspection, observed the issue reported was due to the dampers in the walls of the complainant’s site, the moisture levels were 20,25,40 and even 90 on scale of 0-90. As per the information provided by the complainant, he had used Damp Block of 8 kgs to 10 kgs which was applied in patches at different portions on the affected areas of interior walls of his premise. As per the Product Information
Sheet (PIS) of Damp Block the product provides coverage of 0.7 sqm/kg. Further it is also recommended to “apply Damp Block at least 2 feet beyond in all directions from the affected area”. The complainant failed or neglected to follow the recommended procedure and had applied it in parts/patches only on the affected areas of interior walls. Further, the officer of the OPs had explained/educated the complainant that the reported issues were not due to the defects in the paints, but due to the dampness in the wall which arisen due to failure to follow the recommendation provided on the paints container and after informing the same to the complainant, closed the complaint. The rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same against the OP No.2.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9.

 

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit Ex.RW-5 alongwith documents Ex.R-6 to Ex.R-8. The learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW-1 alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that the complainant  had purchased items of paints and other necessary instruments regarding paints from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.47,760/- vide cash/credit memos No.9353 dated 16.9.2015 amounting Rs.17,700/-; 9358 dated 19.9.2015 amounting Rs.12,160/-; 9364 dated 19.9.2015 amounting Rs.1600/-; 9393 dated 29.9.2015 amounting Rs.7950/-; 9397 dated 29.9.2015 amounting Rs.8350/-  (Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8) by paying the said amounts in cash to the OP No.1.  At the time of sale of paint, the OP No.1 had given  warranty of seven years with replacement free of cost, if found defective. The  said paints had fallen down from the walls and colour of windows and doors totally in delete conditions just within a period of about one and half years. Thereafter, he visited the shop of OP No.1 and made complaint in this regard, who assured to paints again on the walls and other instruments of the house at own expenses with new one and also assured that he will complaint the higher authority of company in this regard. After waiting for sufficient time, he kept on visiting personally and contacting telephonically the OP No.1, but all in vain and finally the OPs flatly refused to admit his claim. He served legal notice dated 22.2.2017 to the OP No.1. The team of the OP no.2 visited the spot and prepared the report Ex.R-4 which reveals that  paints from the wall had fallen down within a period of one month whereas the Ops had given the warranty of five years. Thus, there is deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops while reiterating the submissions made in the written statements has argued that in the instant case, high moisture levels of 20,25,40 and even 90 on scale of 0-90 on the moisture meter (an instrument for measuring moisture underneath a surface) were recorded at the complainant’s site.  It is further argued that the complainant had repainted the site and had used Damp Block for the moisture issue, but the application was not apt/correct i.e., the Damp Block was not used in sufficient quantity/ was less than the required quantity, due to which, post application of Paint, blisters were formed.  It is further argued that the  complainant is required to follow certain procedures for painting i.e. to check the surface condition, use proper quantity of products and proper paint application method. But the complainant has failed to follow the same which has resulted in blisters and peeling off. The said issue of blistering in the complainant site was because of heavy content of moisture at the site and the complainant has failed or neglected to apply Damp Block in sufficient quantity and therefore, the OP No.2 is neither responsible nor liable for the claims of the complainant. It is also argued that from the report Ex.R-4 it is clear that there is no fault on the part of the Ops and the complainant has failed to follow the same which has resulted in blisters and peeling off. Thus, it is argued that there is there is unfair trade practice   on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

9.             After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that there is unfair trade practice. on the part of the Ops for supply of defective paints to the complainant. The complainant had constructed a new house and to decorate the newly constructed house, the complainant purchased the paints from the OP No.1 supposing the same of the good  and best quality for that golden moments but the OP no.1 sold the inferior quality paint which was prepared by the OP No.2. Thus, there is unfair trade practice on the part of both the Ops in this case.  Sale of paints by the  Ops to the complainant has neither been denied nor are in dispute from the bills Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8. From the bills it is clear that the complainant had purchased the paints worth Rs.47,760/- from OP No.1 and the said paints were manufactured by OP No.2. The complaints made by the complainant regarding defects in the paints are amply proved from the inspection report Ex.R-4 prepared by the Ops.   As per report Ex.R-4, the painting was completed in September 2015 and the said report is of October 2015 i.e. within one month of the completion of the painting.  The stand of the Ops that “ Moisture observed on surface was 20, 25, 40 and even 90 on scale of 0-90 because within a  short period of one month it is not possible. The papers mark A shows that the Apex Ultima was having five years warranty. The complainant purchased the paints at the suggestions of OP No.1. Therefore, deficiency in services on the part of the Ops is proved that the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.47,760/- i.e.. cost of the paint paid by the complainant. Besides, the complainant is also entitled to compensation for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be accepted on account of deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

10.            For the reasons recorded above, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 to make the payment of Rs.47,760/- i.e. cost of the paint, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the mental harassment caused to him and Rs.5000/- for the litigation expenses.    The amount of compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses shall be shared by both the parties in equal shares. The Ops are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection  Act. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per the rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated: 9.03.2022.                                                       President.

 

                                        Member        Member.