Date of Filing : 13.09.2022
Date of Disposal: 30.03.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc.,B.L., .....MEMEBR-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.,ICWA(Inter)., B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.168/2022
THIS THURSDAY, THE 30th DAY OF MARCH 2023
Mr.P.Suryamurthy,
No.30, Narayanasamy Garden,
5th Street, Kodungaiyur,
Chennai 600 118. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
The Proprietor,
Shri Balaji Hardware,
No.5, Manali Highways,
Seetharam Nagar,
Chinna Kondungaiyur,
Chennai 600 118. ..........Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : S.Abirami , Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : Mr.V.Harikrishnan, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 20.03.2023 in the presence of S.Abirami counsel for the complainant and Mr.V.Harikrishnan counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service in selling the Asian Paint along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.26,673/- towards purchase of Asian Paints and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and monetary loss caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that he purchased Asian Paints having colour code 8313 Raw Steel Apex with the opposite party. After completion of the paint works, he found that even though all the five containers purchased with the opposite party’s shop was with the same colour code 8313, they were in different shades of grey and it spoiled the aesthetics of his house. The complainant opted to purchase the Asian paints of that particular code after consulting the shade catalogue and by giving different shades. The opposite party’s shop spoiled the paint work due to the mix-up caused by the opposite party and he was made to redo the paintwork. Thus the opposite party has caused monetary loss to the complainant due to deficiency in service. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.26,673/- towards purchase of Asian Paints and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and monetary loss caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-
The opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that they were Retail Dealers relating to building construction materials such as paints, Iron and Steels, household fittings and other hardware items and also authorized dealer for multiple products which relates to building construction. They were also one of the authorized dealers for selling the Asian Paints on small margin basis and the said Asian Paint company was not arrayed as opposite party. As per the decision of complainant, he purchased Asian Paints with colour code 8313 (Raw Steel) frequently on various dates. The complainant was satisfied with the colours at the time of purchase, now with the false allegation had approached this Commission. The opposite party provided the colour code catalog to the complainant and as per the desires of complainant had delivered the product as prescribed in the colour code brochure. If the complainant was not satisfied he should have approached the Asian Paints for the defects. Moreover they have not impleaded the Asian Paints as a party. It was submitted that the colour of the paint decided by the customer was mixed by the machine, whereas the customer choice number of the paint colour mentioned in the catalog was entered in the machine which mixed the colour of the paint and it was not manual, more over the colour mixing machinery was fixed by Asian Paints company in the premises of the dealer shop throughout the country. The complainant received 8313 number of the paint colour mentioned in the catalog in a good manner. Thus there was no deficiency in service on their part and they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.5 were marked on their side. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 marked on their side.
Point for consideration:-
Whether the complaint allegations raised against the opposite party has been successfully proved by the complainant and whether the same amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
On the side of complainant the following documents were filed for proving the complaint allegations;
Receipts given by the opposite party dated 02.04.2022, 07.04.2022 and 14.04.2022 for the purchase of Asian Paints were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3;
Photograph was marked as Ex.A4;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 20.05.2022 was marked as Ex.A5;
On the side of opposite party the following documents were filed in proof of their defence;
Colouring shades mentioning No.8313 was marked as Ex.B1;
Photographs of the complainant’s house was marked as Ex.B2
The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the complainant is that he had purchased Asian Paints from the opposite party shop having colour code 8313 on different dates for painting his house. After completion of the painting work he found that the shades are different in grey colour and the entire house seems awkward. Further it is argued that only the hard ware employees take care of mixing up procedures. It is argued that whether they mixed-up the same colour code are not is a question to be decided. Due to the appearance of different shades in the house the complainant has to paint the house again which caused huge monetary loss and thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that if the complainant was not satisfied with the colour after painting he ought not to have purchased the same code again. Further the Asian Paint company who was the manufacturer is a necessary party to the proceedings and if there is any grievance with regard to the shades, if the complainant approached the Asian Paint they would have done the necessary corrections to meet out the satisfaction of the complainant. Being only the seller no liability could be fixed on this opposite party. Thus the counsel sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
Perused the pleadings and evidences submitted by both parties. We find force in the argument raised by the opposite party that the Asian Paint who was the manufacturer is a necessary party to the proceedings for the reason that the complainant was having grievance over the shades resulting from the paint manufactured by the Asian Paints. The opposite party being the seller could not be found fault for the shades that appear from the paint manufactured by somebody else. The contention of the complainant that it is only the opposite party who mix-up the colours as per the code could not be accepted as no evidence was let in by the complainant regarding the allegation that the opposite party’s employees mixed-up wrong codes resulting in different shades. Further there is no evidence that the complainant approached the Asian Paint company with regard to his grievance. The complainant if at all not satisfied with the first purchase made by him on 02.04.2022 on seeing the shade should not have purchased subsequently on 07.04.2022, 09.04.2022 and 14.04.2022. Thus for the above reasons when the determination of colour shades appearing from the paint lies with the exclusive domain of the manufacturer i.e. Asian Paints, we could not impose any liability on the opposite party who is merely a seller. In the facts and circumstances we hold that the complainant had miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the opposite party and as against the complainant.
Point No.2:-
As we have held above that the complainant failed to prove that the opposite party had committed any deficiency in service, he is not entitled any reliefs from the opposite party in the complaint.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 30th day of March 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER -I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 02.04.2022 Receipt given by the opposite party. Original
Ex.A2 07.04.2022 Receipt given by the opposite party. Original
Ex.A3 14.04.2022 Receipt given by the opposite party. Original
Ex.A4 ............... Photographs of the complainant’s house. Xerox
Ex.A5 20.05.2022 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the oppostie party. Xerox
List of document filed by the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 ............... Colouring shades mentioning No.8313. Xerox
Ex.B2 ................ Photographs of the complainant’s house. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
