DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th day of March 2011

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

Date of filing: 18/06/2010

(C.C.No.83/2010)

S.Krishnankutty

S/o.M.Sankaran Ezhuthassan,

Silvernook,

Neduvakkad,

Kannadi, Palakkad – 678701. - Complainant

(Party in person)

V/s

1. Vijayan

Kannadi Agencies

V.H.Road

Palakkad

(By Adv.P.Anil)

2. Company Secretary & General Manager

ICI India Ltd.

10^th Floor, DLF Plaza Tower

DLF Qutab Enclave

DLF City Phase – I

Gurgaon – 122002.

Haryana

(By Adv.S.Vinod Kumar) - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA.G.NAIR. MEMBER

The complainant has purchased 30 litres of ICI weather shield dulux paint on 14/2/2009 from 1^st opposite party. The complainant applied the paint in his compound wall and outer walls of the house employing 52 men. He paid Rs.250/- per day for painter. In about 5 months time the paint started fading. The complainant sent complaint by e-mail to ICI paint, and they sent representative to complainant's house. 1^st opposite party also came to his house. The opposite parties stated that salt content in rain water is the problem and they are not responsible. The complainant stated that not applied primer and applied 2 coat of cement primer. The opposite parties have not repainted the surface or given any compensation even after repeated requests. The acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to pay

1. Rs.5253/- as cost of paint

2. Rs.13,000/- as cost of labour

3. Rs.10,000/- as mental agony.

Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions.

The 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant has purchased 30 litres of ICI weather shield dulux paint. The 2^nd opposite party has supplied the paint in question to the 1^st opposite party for sale and the only thing they did was to mix the colour of the complainant's choice in the paint with the aid of computer mixing. The 1^st opposite party stated that quality and colour of the paint would diminish in accordance to the increase in extent of the wall. The complainant has not mentioned the measurement of the wall where the paint is applied.

The 2^nd opposite party stated that for every purchase of the Dulux Weather Shield Exterior Acrylic Emulsion Paint an instruction sheet detailing the way in which it is to be applied for getting optimum results. The complainant has not giving the details as to the extent of the surface area painted and the number of coats applied. The 2^nd opposite party stated that the complainant had used cement primer manufactured by some other company as against the specific instructions given by the company. Further 2^nd opposite party stated that the claim is the paint has faded and the complainant must be proved the paint has faded. There is no allegation in the complaint that the goods purchased is defective. Both opposite parties stated that there is no deficiency in service. Hence both opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

Evidence adduced consisted of Chief affidavits and documents. Ext.A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant. Matter was heard.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2. If so, what is the relief & costs entitled to the complainant ?

Issue No.1 & 2

We perused relevant documents on record. The 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased 30 litres of ICI weather shield dulux paint. The 1^st opposite party is the dealer and the 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the paint. The complainant stated that he had applied the paint in his compound wall and other walls of the house employing 52 men. No evidence was produced by the complainant to show the paint was applied in compound wall and other walls of the house. The complainant has not examined the painter who employed in the house to prove the primer was not applied. In Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 the complainant has purchased the paint from the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party stated that quality and colour of the paint would diminish in accordance to the increase in measurement of the wall where the paint is applied. No evidence was produced by the complainant to show the measurement of the compound wall and other wall in which the paint is applied. Both parties have not taken steps to prove the quality and colour of the paint. In Ext.A3 the complainant has sent complaint by e-mail to ICI paints and they sent reply by e-mail. The complainant stated that the representative of opposite parties visited the house. Complainant miserably failed to prove his case.

In the above discussions we hold the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of March 2011.

Sd/-

Seena H

President

Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Cash bill of 1^st opposite party dated 14/2/08

Ext.A2 - Cash bill of 1^st opposite party dated 13/2/08

Ext.A3 – Copy of product complaint acknowledgment mail and its reply