Date of filing: 27.12.2019

Judgment date:  28.12.2022

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President

This complaint is filed by Mrs. Munmun Bose U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party (referred as O.P. hereinafter) namely Aloke Kr. Dutta alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

The case of the complainant in short is that the opposite party is a painter by profession and he agreed to paint the house of the complainant with Asian Paint (Ultima) for the exterior part of the house and Asian Paint (distemper) for the interior part and Asian Paint (Apex) for boundary wall. Total cost of the work was settled at Rs. 50,000/- Complainant paid the entire sum in three instalments and opposite party completed his work on 30/12/2016. But immediately after one month of the completion of the painting work, complainant found that there was erosion of colour from the exterior part of the building as well as the boundary wall. So complainant immediately informed to the opposite party who sent his representative for inspection. Thereafter opposite party assured the complainant that he would repaint the eroded portion with colour but in spite of the said promise opposite party failed and neglected to paint the said eroded portion. A letter was also sent to the opposite party by the complainant but all in vain. Ultimately complainant approached the Consumer District Grievance Cell but as ultimately the mediation was failed the present complaint has been filed by the complainant praying for directing the opposite party to do the repairing work of the eroded portion, to pay the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- which she had paid to the O.P., to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards mental pain and agony and also pay the litigation cost.

On perusal of the record it appears notice was sent to the O.P. but O.P. neither appeared nor filed any written version. Thus the case came up for exparte hearing.

The only point required determination is whether the complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASON

In support of her claim that she had engaged the opposite party for the purpose of the painting in her house situated at 13D, Durga Prasanya Param Hansa Road, Kolkata – 700 047, complainant has filed bank statement showing payment of the sum to the O.P. in three instalments of Rs. 20,000/-, 10,000/- and 20,000/- respectively. She has also filed some photographs of the said eroded portion of the paints. A copy of notice dated 12/06/2018 is also filed wherefrom it appears that the same was sent to the opposite party stating about the agreement with the O.P. to paint the house exterior portion, interior portion and boundary wall and complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- but immediately after the completion of the said painting work there appeared erosion of colour. By that notice complainant requested the O.P. to repair and rectify by repainting the same. The O.P. has replied to the said notice wherein he has not disputed about the agreement of painting works or the quality of the paint O.P. only alleged that some portion of the house of complainant had damps and so due to the water percolation and seepage of water, said erosion took place and so the complainant had to take step to prevent percolation or seepage of water. But before this commission there is absolutely no material that the erosion of paints happened due to seepage of water and due to the dampness. So in the absence of any contrary material, to counter or rebut the claim of the complainant, complainant is entitled to the relief of directing the O.P. to repaint those portion of the house that is the exterior part of the house and the boundary wall.

Hence

            ORDERED

CC/672/2019 is allowed exparte. Opposite party is directed to repaint the eroded portion of colour in the exterior part of the house and in the boundary wall of the house of the complainant within three months from this date. He is further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within the aforesaid period of three months.