Date of Filing: 16.08.2019

Date of Judgment:  20.07.2022            

Mrs.  Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble  President

This complaint is filed by the complainants 1) Samrat Das, under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 against the Opposite party namely The Proprietor, Mahabir Paints and Hardware  (referred to as O.P), alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its  part.

          The case of the complainant in short is that he purchased an unused new flat from the erstwhile owner and as the said flat was not finished with colour on interior walls, he on search of a dealer of Asian Paints in the website of Asian Paints came to know that O.P was the nearest dealer of Asian Paints in his locality. So, complainant visited the shop of the O.P . One employee namely Palash Sarkar visited the flat of the complainant thereafter and suggested application of Royal Aspira Paints and handed over him a brochure of Asian Paints offering 5 years warrantee on the Royal Aspira. So, complainant agreed. An estimate of Rs. 41,927/- was settled as price except the painting of windows, grills and doors. The complainant demanded split-up or break up of bills of colours and other materials but the O.P assured that the same would be given after completion of the entire work. So, complainant paid Rs.15000/- and a hand written bill was handed over to the complainant by the O.P. Subsequently a computer generated bill was also provided but without mentioning about the billing of Royal Aspira, Registration Number, GSTIN Number or batch number. A further amount of Rs.10,300/- was settled for painting in respect of the grills, windows and doors and also texture colour design. But since the O.P could not perform the texture colour design, the amount of Rs.2000/- was made less and settled price was Rs. 50,000/-. Complainant made the payment of entire sum and demanded the bill but again a computer generated bill was given bearing signature of the said employee Palash Sarkar. Immediately after completion of the painting works in the flat of the complainant, complainant noticed some pallid marks in so many places of walls. So, complainant informed the same to the O.P about the warranty as assured by the Asian Paints in respect of the Royal Aspira brand and also asked for pacca bills of Asian Paints used in the complainant’s flat. The complainant was assured on each occasion that it will be given shortly but no pacca bill/invoice specifying registration number, GSTIN Number, batch number of paints etc. was given to the complainant. The cost of the said painting work of Royal Aspira is almost double of other paint works. Complainant also sent the whatsapp message to the O.P requsting to provide him proper invoice/bill /challan mentioning its Proprietor’s name, registration number, GSTIN number as well as batch number of the colour and other materials of the Asian Paint Company. But the O.P paid no heed and thus the present complaint has been filed praying for directing the O.P to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant, Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost and Rs.20,000/- on account of unfair trade practice .

            On perusal of the record it appears that the notice was sent but inspite of its service being satisfactory, no step was taken by the O.P, neither any written version was filed. So, vide order dated 3.12.2019 the case was directed to be proceeded exparte.

            During the course of the evidence complainant filed affidavit-in-chief in support of his claim and also filed copy of certain documents and ultimately argument has been heard. BNA has also been filed by the complainant.

            So, the only point requires determination is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

            In support of his claim that he had hired the Asian paint service of the O.P on visiting the website of the Asian Paint and initially the amount settled to be paid by the complainant towards the cost of the painting except painting in the window, door etc. was Rs.41,927/-, complainant has filed  a hand written bill and also computer generated bill appears to have been issued by the O.P, wherefrom it appears that an advance of Rs.15000/- was paid by the complainants on 20.9.2018. It further appears from another computer generated bill that a further amount of Rs.10,300/- for the painting work of Grill, window ,door and verandah was settled and complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 27.9.2018. So, the total amount was ultimately settled at Rs. 52,227/- . But it appears from the computer generated bill dated 2.10.2018 that the O.P reduced Rs.2000/- for texture design and thus total amount came to Rs.50,000/-. Complainant paid the further sum of Rs.25000/- on the said date i.e 2.10.2018. Thus the complainant has paid the entire amount as settled and it also appears that the painting work has also been done by the O.P. 

            The claim which has been made by the complainant is that to avail the warranty from the Asian Paint Company, he asked for proper invoice or bill mentioning the name of the proprietor, registration number, GSTIN Number as well as batch number but the same was not provided and supplied to the complainant by the O.P. The complainant as per the advertisement by the Asian Paint Company was entitled to 5 years warranty but the O.P though claimed a dealer of Asian Paints did not provide those documents due to which complainant was unable to avail the warranty for defect, if any, noticed subsequently.

            It is also claimed by the complainant that after the painting work was done, he also found some pallid marks in so  many places of the walls but in this context, it may be mentioned that in order to substantiate the same, no evidence is forthcoming before this Commission. The complainant has mainly relied upon the whatsapp message exchanged between the parties and it appears from the said whatsapp messages which is Annexure E to the complaint that texture colour design was not completed and so the complainant had sent the photograph of the condition of the said wall of unfinished texture colour design.

            On a careful scrutiny of the own case of the complainant it appears that Rs.2000/- was made less by the O.P as he could not perform the texture colour design. So, for the said reason no further claim can be made by the complainant for the unfinished work of texture colour design.

            It is apparent from the receipts filed by the complainant, issued by the O.P, that they are hand written and computer generated bills and it does not bear the invoice number, batch number of the product of the Asian Paint Company, GSTIN number and the name of the proprietor of the O.P company. The claim of the complainant  that for the said reason he could not avail the warranty as advertised by the Asian Paint Company for the Royal Aspira colour and thus has suffered loss and injury, cannot be ruled out. So, for the said reason complainant is entitled to the compensation especially when before this Commission no contrary material is forthcoming.

            In our view compensation of Rs.12,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.8000/- will be justified.

Hence,

            ORDERED

That the CC/422/2019 is allowed exparte.

O.P is directed to pay Rs.12000/- as compensation and Rs.8000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 2 months from this date.