By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
-2-
2. Brief facts of the case are given below:
The case of the Complainant is that he is the owner of an auditorium, first Opposite Party is a retailer and second Opposite Party is the manufacturer of Wallmaax Paints Private Limited. While so, the representatives of the Opposite Parties approached the Complainant and repeatedly visited and requested to use their paint in the auditorium. So the Complainant placed an order to them. On 01-03-2017, the first Opposite Party supplied 40 liters of W.Maax Floorex floor coat Black and 200 liters of W.Maax Floorex floor coat White and the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.85,000/- for that. During the painting works, the Complainant noticed some minute colour changes in the paint applied area. The matter was brought to the notice of the Opposite Party No.1 and after that they visited the auditorium and told to the Complainant that the original colour will come gradually after few days and asked to continue painting work. But after finishing the work, the fading was developed and spread over the floor of the auditorium and the floor became looking ugly and entire premises were not suitable for the marriage functions. Pursuant to the grievance, the Opposite Parties visited the premises and offered that they shall supply another suitable paint. After enquiry the Complainant decided to use some other configuration
-3-
from some other manufacturers. Then the second Opposite Party offered to refund the cost of paint and labour charges as per their schedule. The complainant paid Rs.51,000/- as labour charges. The Complainant had suffered huge loss by way of rent and by cancelling the booked programs. After repeated requests from the Complainant the Opposite Parties did not refund the amount. On 12-03-2018, the Complainant issued a letter to the first Opposite Party along with a copy of the same to the second Opposite Party demanding the cost of paint, labour charges, and expenses together with 18% interest. After contacting the second Opposite Party the first Opposite Party assured payment within a short time, but they didn’t make the payment. The acts of the Opposite Party are highly unfair trade practice. Hence, the Complainant filed the above complaint praying the Commission to direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.85,000/- as cost of paint together with 18% interest and to pay Rs.51,000/- as labour charges and Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation and also to pay Rs.10,000/-as cost of the proceedings.
3. On service of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared, Opposite Party No.1 filed version and Opposite Party No.2 did not file version and hence the second
-4-
Opposite Party remained ex-parte. The first Opposite Party admitted that he is a retailer of Wall Maax paints. They denies that the representative requested to use the paint of second Opposite Party and he further stated that the Complainant himself approached and selected the paint. Thereafter, they supplied 40 liters of W.Maax Floorex floor coat Black and 200 liters of W.Maax Floorex floor coat White and received rupees 85,000/-. The first Opposite Party admitted that he had given offer to the Complainant to refund the cost of the paint on the basis of the assurance given by the second Opposite Party. The first Opposite Party further denied the cost of labour charge, compensation amount etc and alleged that the defects happened only due to the poor maintenance, poor workmanship and improper application of the paints and as such they are not liable to pay compensation. The complaint is not a genuine one and prayed for dismissal.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?
-5-
5. The Complainant was examined as PW-1 and Ext. A1 to A3 were marked. No oral evidences were adduced by the contesting first Opposite Party.
6.Point No. 1 and 2 :- For the sake of convenience and brevity all points are considered together.
7. On going through the available records and submissions there is no dispute that the Complainant is a customer and he had purchased paint from the first Opposite Party’s shop, which was manufactured by second Opposite Party and applied the same to his auditorium. There is no dispute regarding the date of purchase. Only dispute remaining is the quality of the paint supplied to the Complainant.
8. There is no dispute that the first Opposite Party is a retailer of the second Opposite Party, who is the manufacturer of the paint. It is well settled that an admission is the best evidence and admitted facts are need not be proved. Here in the present case, the first Opposite Party admitted almost all the allegations of the Complainant. The only question remaining is whether the first Opposite Party has any liability to refund of the amount that he received as cost of the paint, labour charges and compensation. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
-6-
case the first Opposite Party could not wash his hands and escape from the liability by saying he is only a retailer. He is bound to refund the amount that he received by supplying substandard product to the Complainant. Since the paint purchased by the Complainant was not useful and of poor quality, there is an obligation to refund the money to the Complainant and the first Opposite Party has the right to get refund from the second Opposite Party. The second Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation for the difficulties suffered by the Complainant. The Complainant had successfully proved that there has been unfair trade practice. This Commission finds that the Opposite Parties are having vicarious liability. Regarding cost of painting the Complainant has not adduced any satisfactory evidence before the Commission. Hence, he is not entitled to get any amount from the Opposite Party for cost of painting. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the Complainant is entitled to get back the money that he spent for purchase of paint, compensation and cost of the complaint.
-7-
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed as follows:-
- Directing the first Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs. 85,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand only) with 6% interest from the date of purchase i.e. from 01-03-2017 till the realization of the amount.
- Directing the second Opposite Party to pay the above amount paid by the first Opposite Party to the Complainant.
- Directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant.
- And directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
- The first Opposite Party and second Opposite Party are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and cost to the Complainant.
- The above amounts shall be paid by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 8% from the due date.
-8-
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 21st day of January 2021.
Date of Filing:-09.05.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Jaison George. Manager.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Authorization Letter. Dt:06.01.2021.
A2. Invoice. Dt:01.03.2017.
A3. Copy of Letter. Dt:12.03.2018.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRC, WAYANAD.
