DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
DATE OF FILING: 15.11.2022.
CC/230/2022
Asharaf Ali, S/o. Sulaiman, - Complainant
Pezhumtharackal, Kongad,
Palakkad-678 631.
(By Adv.P.T.Ajmal)
Vs
Managing Director/Manager, -Opposite Party
Berger Paint India Limited,
Building No.XVI 564B, 564C, 564D,
Poganamkad Centre Kurichiri P.O,
Thrissur-680 028.
(By Adv.M.J.Vince)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant.
The complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party for painting of his house (constructed in 2016) for a total amount of Rs.2,64,342/. The opposite party completed the work in February, 2021. According to the complainant, the outside wall developed a crack after three weeks of completing the work. When the issue was reported to the representative of the opposite party, he came and inspected the site and agreed to rectify the defect. In between, the other walls also developed similar defects. Inspite of repeated contacts to the toll free number of the opposite party company and the Manager of Thrissur depot, the opposite party has not so far rectified the defects. Hence, this complaint is filed seeking refund of the cost of Rs.2,70,342/- along with a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- apart from cost.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance and filed their version denying the allegations. According to them, the complainant himself had mentioned that fungus started appearing on the walls within six months of construction. Hence, defects pointed out in the complaint are due to the inferior quality of construction by unqualified labour and using inferior quality materials. This matter was already informed to the complainant before starting the work. The cracks formed due to defective construction have caused seepage of water into the walls which absorbed water during rain. This is the basic reason for the defects and the opposite party has not compromised on the quality of paint/painting work.
3. Based on the pleadings of the complainant and the opposite party, the followings issues were framed.
1) Whether the cracks in the outer wall of the complainant’s house was due to inferior quality of materials used for construction or due to the inferior quality of paint used by the opposite party?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4) Reliefs as to cost and compensation.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A3 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the quotation given by the opposite party to the complainant for the painting work, Ext.A2 is a series of photographs showing the defects of the work and Ext.A3 is the building permit issued by Kongad Grama Panchayat for the construction of complainant’s house. The documents were objected for the reasons shown below;
Ext.A1: Issued by the contractor not by the opposite party.
Ext.A2: Photographs are to be proved by the person who took the photos.
Ext.A3: Issued in the name of a stranger not the complainant.
The opposite party filed proof affidavit, but did not mark any document as evidence.
5. Ext.A3 marked by the complainant, probably marked as evidence to show the fitness of the plot for construction is not in the name of the complainant. Ext.A2 is a series of photographs showing the defects on the house, but we are unable to identify the premises or the quality of paint and construction by merely going through the photographs. Ext.A1 is the quotation signed by the complainant and the contractor, and not by the opposite party. Aforesaid three sets of documents are; therefore, not helpful in coming to a conclusion as regards the quality of the product supplied by the opposite party. The complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence even to prove a valid contract/agreement between the complainant and the opposite party for making the opposite party, a party to the complaint. Hence, the other issues of the case are not discussed in detail.
6. As the existence of a contract/agreement between the complainant and the opposite party is not proved by adducing satisfactory evidence, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 27th day of February, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V,
PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K,
MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: The quotation given by the opposite party to the complainant for the painting work.
Ext.A2: A series of photographs showing the defects of the work.
Ext.A3: The copy of the building permit issued by Kongad Grama Panchayat for the construction of complainant’s house.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission ProcedureRegulations), 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
