Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. The case of the complainant is that he entrusted the painting work of his car to first opposite party. It was orally agreed that complainant should pay Rs.2,000/- towards labour charges and purchase necessary paint and materials in the presence of opposite party as per instructions of opposite party. That during the time of such agreement one Parameswaran and Unni were present who have witnessed the transaction. Opposite party offered three years guarantee for the painting done by him and requested 1½ months to furnish the work. Complainant paid Rs.500/- as advance. On 09-8-2005 opposite party delivered the car at the residence of complainant after finishing all work. On the said day complainant paid Rs.1,000/- and also brought to the notice of opposite party that there were some rough places on the car even after painting. Opposite party assured to rectify the defect the next day itself. On 10-8-2005 opposite party took the vehicle to rectify the defects in painting and later brought the vehicle back to the residence of the complainant when complainant was not at home. The vehicle still showed defects of painting. On 11-8-2005 complainant went to the workshop along with witnesses and talked about his grievance. Opposite party did not make any attempt to rectify the defects and evaded by making several lame excuses. Hence this complaint.

2. Opposite party filed version denying any knowledge about such agreement to paint the vehicle of complainant. Opposite party has totally denied the averments in the complaint. That opposite party has not entered into any agreement with the complainant and that opposite party does not even know the complainant. That the complaint without impleading the painter is not proper. That opposite party who is only the owner of the workshop is not liable in any manner. That complaint is to be dismissed.

3. Evidence consists of oral evidence of a witness examined for complainant and the evidence of complainant who were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively. Exts.A1 to A4 marked for complainant. On the side of opposite party he was examined as DW1. No documents marked for opposite party.

4. Complainant is aggrieved that the painting work of his car done at the workshop of opposite party is defective. According to complainant both parties had entered into an oral agreement whereby it was decided that complainant should purchase paint and necessary materials in the presence of opposite party and as per instructions of opposite party and also to pay labour charges of Rs.2,000/-. It is affirmed that complainant paid Rs.500/- as advance, and also that opposite party assured three years quarantee for the painting done by him. Ext.A1 is the bill evidencing purchase of materials for painting on 20-6-2005 for an amount of Rs.1,261.50. Ext.A2 is another bill dated, 28-7-2005 for purchase of paint and materials for Rs.9,375/-. It is affirmed by complainant that when the vehicle was delivered after painting there were several rough surfaces and the painting was defective. Although complainant brought this to the notice of opposite party, and opposite party took the vehicle again to rectify the defects the defect in painting were not removed. The deposition of complainant is fully consistent with his affidavit and pleadings. In cross examination complainant has stated the details about the defect noted by him in the paint work. PW1 who is an employee of another workshop and who has witnessed the deal has deposed fully supporting the case of complainant. There is nothing brought out in cross examination of these witnesses to discredit their testimony in the box.

5. Interestingly, the defence raised by opposite party is that of blanket denial. Though it is suggested that the witness PW1 is in enemical terms with opposite party and which is vehemently denied, it is categorically stated by DW1 that complainant has no enemity towards him. It is brought out in evidence that DW1 dos undertake painting of vehicles in his workshop. It is also stated by DW1 that in some occasions parties do purchase paint materials. He has deposed as under:

"ഞാനും പരാതിക്കാരനും തമ്മിലുളള ധാരണയുടെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തില്‍ മഞ്ചേരിയിലെ paint കടയില്‍ നിന്നും സാധനം വാങ്ങി എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ അതുപ്രകാരം painter ആണ് വാങ്ങിയത്.”

The contention of opposite party is that he being the owner is not liable and the painter is liable. We are unable to accept this contention. Opposite party who is the owner of the workshop is vicariously liable for the negligence committed by the employee/painter which is done in the course of the employment. In cross examination suggestion given by opposite party is answered by PW1 as under:

“Painter-റുടെ പ്രശ്നം കൊണ്ടാണ് സംഭവിച്ചത്. മഴക്കാലമായതു

കൊണ്ടും Painter-റുടെ കുഴപ്പം കൊണ്ടുമാണ് ഇങ്ങനെ ഉണ്ടായത്

എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ ശരിയാണ്.”

Thus it clear that the painting was defective. From the totality of evidence tendered before us we are able to conclude that the case put forward by complainant is true and probable. Complainant has succeeded in establishing a case in his favour. We find opposite party deficient in service.

6. Complainant has claimed refund of the amount spend for purchasing materials and also the amount paid to opposite party. Besides he claims Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and hardships. We consider that complainant is definitely entitled to the refund of the total amount spend by him towards the painting. We hold that complainant is entitled to Rs.12,250/- as damages together with interest @ 6% from the date of complaint till payment which would be sufficient compensation to the complainant.

7. In the result we allow the complaint and order opposite party to pay Rs.12,250/- (Rupees Twelve thousand, two hundred and fifty only) to complainant together with interest @ 6% from date of complaint till payment along with cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 

Dated this 18th day of December, 2008.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1 and PW2

PW1 : P. Parameswaran, witness.

PW2 : K.T. Georgekutty, Complainant.

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4

Ext.A1 : Bill dated, 20-6-2005 for Rs.1261.50 from the Paint Shoppe,

Melakkom, Manjeri.

Ext.A2 : Bill dated, 28-7-2005 for Rs.9375/- from the Paint Shoppe,

Melakkom, Manjeri.

Ext.A3 : Agreement dated, 18-4-2004 between complainant and Manzoorali.

Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the Registration Certificate of Vehicle

No.KL10-Z 3569

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : DW1

DW1 : Sudheesh.P.K., Opposite party.

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER