Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/266

Jagmit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Titu Paint Store - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kumar Mittal

23 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :                266 of 2019

Date of Institution:      24.10.2019

 Date of Decision :      23.08.2023

 

Jagmit Singh aged about 32 years son of Pritam Singh resident of Village Pacca, No. 3, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Titu Paint Store, through its Manager/Proprietor/Partner, near Clock Tower, Dr Bimal Street, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
2. Asian Paints Limited, Plot No. 138, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula (Haryana)-134113 through its Managing Director/ Chairman/Manager.

                       .......Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Kiranjit Kaur Arora, President,

Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for  OPs,

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

ORDER

(Kiranjit Kaur Arora, President)

                    Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP seeking directions to OPs to refund Rs.45,277/-for defected paint sold by them and for further directing them to pay

 

‘CC No.266 of 2019’

Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                                      Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that for the purpose of getting his house white washed, complainant purchased paint from OP-1 that was manufactured by OP-2, but OPs sold him defective paint because after some time of doing paint work, his house and doors became dull and started looking bad due to manufacturing defect in said paint. Complainant informed about this to OPs, who sent their representative to check the paint, said representative found that paint was defective and they offered 16 litres of paint to him in place of old defective one, but the loss suffered by complainant is much more than the offer given by OPs as he has paid Rs.50,000/-as labour charges and left his business for many days. Complainant made several requests to OPs to redress his grievance. Complainant made several requests to OPs to make payment of Rs.45,277/- i.e cost of paint, but OPs flatly refused to make any payment, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. All this has caused harassment and mental agony to complainants, for which they have prayed for compensation and litigation expenses. Complainants have prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation of Rs.one lac and litigation expenses of Rs,55,000/- besides the main relief. Hence, the  instant complaint.

3                                            The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 30.10.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

 

CC No.266 of 2019

4                                           OP-1 filed reply through counsel wherein took preliminary objections that complaint is an abuse of process of law and they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong, incorrect and asserted that neither there is any manufacturing defect in said paint nor there is any deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. Present complaint is filed with ulterior motive to cause harassment and to extract money from them. However, on merits, OP-1 has admitted that complainant purchased said paint from them and also admitted that on 18.09.2019, complainant got registered complaint with consumer helpline number of OP-2 stating the issue of appearance of bubbles in Woodtech Emporio Gold PU Glossy upon application. OP-2 immediately sent their representative on 22.09.2019 who observed bubble formation in Emporio Gold PU. Consequently, they sent their technician at the house of complainant on 26.09.2019, who submitted that product involved in present complaint is a super luxury wood finish coating, requiring experienced skill for application. Before application, the base and hardener are required to be mixed in exact proportion as per directions and recommendations given in Information Sheet and if hardener comes in contact with air for long time, moisture gets trapped and on application of paint, bubble formation occurs. There is no manufacturing defect in paint sold by answering OP, but requisite precautions have not been followed while mixing the hardener and base before application. Only to present goodwill gesture, answering OP offered to replace entire 16 litres of Emporio Gold PU paint and also offered to pay Rs.5000/-as labour charges, but complainant insisted for receiving the Asian Paint PU instead of Emporio Gold PU due to which dispute arose between the parties. Accepting the wish of complainant, answering OP provided him 10  litres

‘CC No.266 of 2019’

of Asian Paint PU and complainant assured to sign the compensation acknowledgment letter to answering OP, on arrival of representative of OP-2, but on 12.09.2019, complainant refused to accept the remaining offer and did not sign the acknowledgment receipt. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                      OP-2 also filed written statement wherein took preliminary objections that complainant has not produced any expert report from any recognised and notified laboratory or other documentary evidence to prove his allegations against answering OP. It is sternly denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the paint manufactured by answering OP. However, on merits OP-2 asserted that on complaint got registered by complainant with them on 18.09.2019, answering OP sent their representative on 22.09.2019 to the house of complainant. Representative found no issue with the product, but observed bubble formation in Emporio Gold PU and on 26.09.2019 their technician visited the house of complainant, who reported that product involved in present complaint is a super luxury wood finish coating requiring experienced skill for application. Before application, the base and hardener are required to be mixed in exact proportion as per directions given in Information Sheet and if hardener comes in contact with air for long time, moisture gets trapped and on application of paint, bubble formation occurs. There is no manufacturing defect in paint sold by answering OP, but requisite precautions have not been followed while missing the hardener and base before application. Only to present goodwill gesture, answering OP offered to replace entire 16 litres of Emporio Gold PU paint and also offered to

‘CC No.266 of 2019’

pay Rs.5000/-as labour charges, but complainant insisted for receiving the Asian Paint PU instead of Emporio Gold PU due to which dispute arose between the parties. Accepting the wish of complainant, OP-1 provided him 10  litres of Asian Paint PU and complainant assured to sign the compensation acknowledgment letter later, on arrival of representative of OP-2, but on 12.09.2019, complainant refused the remaining offer and did not sign the acknowledgment receipt. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Both the OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and complainant has filed the present complaint only to gain money from them. OPs have prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                         Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex CW-1/A, documents Ex C-1 and Ex C-9 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                        Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Pankaj Behal as Ex OP-1 & 2/ 1, documents Ex OP1&2/-2 to Ex OP-14 and thereafter, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

8                                              We have heard the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the documents placed on record by respective parties.

9                                             From the careful perusal of the record it is observed that case of the complainant is that paint purchased by him from OP-1, which was

‘CC No.266 of 2019’

manufactured by OP-2, was defective paint because after some time of doing paint work, his house and doors became dull and started looking bad. It is alleged that there was some manufacturing defect in said paint. Complainant has alleged that he has paid Rs.50,000/-as labour charges. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests Ops have not refunded the amount of Rs.45,277/-that is cost paint paid by him to OPs. On the other hand plea taken by Ops is that there is no manufacturing defect in paint sold by them, but requisite precautions were not been followed while mixing the hardener and base before application. But in present case, requisite recommendations were not considered due to which bubble formation occurred.

10                           From the record produced, there remains no doubt that bubble formation occurred due to paint provided by Ops and it looks dull and it is well proved and evident that paint provided by OPs did not work well. But probability that complainant did not get mixed hardener and base properly as per recommendations given by OPs, can also not be denied. Moreover, allegations levelled by complainant are without any expert evidence. In order to show goodwill gesture, OPs placed an offer for providing 16 litres of paint alongwith Rs5000/-as labour cost.

 11                                    From the above discussion and after going through all affidavits and documents placed on record by respective parties, it is made out that complainant has succeeded in proving his case. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed. OPs are directed to pay cost of four items listed at serial number 1 to 4 of invoice Ex C-6 to complainant alongwith Rs.5000/-as

‘CC No.266 of 2019’

compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses incurred on present complaint. Compliance of this order be made by OPs jointly and severally within one month of receipt of the copy of the order.

12                           The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases and incomplete of quorum. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Commission

Dated : 23.08.2023

Member                             President

         (Vishav Kant Garg)           (Kiranjit Kaur Arora)