Punjab

Sangrur

CC/418/2022

Jaskaran Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jai Ganesh Paint and Hardware Store - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.S.Ratol

05 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 418

 Instituted on:   19.04.2022

                                                                        Decided on:     05.09.2023

Jaskaran Singh aged about 26 years son of Narinderjit Singh, resident of House No.28, New Friends Colony, Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

 

1.     Jai Ganesh Paint and Hardware Store, Phirni Patiala Gate Road, Haripura Colony, Sunami Gate, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

2.     Asian Paints Limited, Asian Paint House, 6A, Shanti Nagar, Santa Cruz (E) Mumbai-400055.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:             : In person.              

For OPs                                 : Shri GS Cheema, Adv.

               

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs as he approached OP number 1 for the purpose of painting his house, as such the complainant purchased various products manufactured by  OP number 2 i.e. Asian Royal and Asian Apco Advance and painter was also provided by OP number 1.  The grievance of the complainant is that though he purchased the paint in the month of July and August, 2020 by spending an amount of Rs.95,000/- besides an amount of Rs.42,000/- spent on labour charges, the paint in question developed cracks, as such, the said defect was brought to the notice of OP number 1 immediately, who admitted the  fact that the paint in question is suffering with manufacturing defect. The complainant  also sent emails to the OP number 2 regarding the defect in the paint. Further case of complainant is that he sent message to OP number 1 on 28.8.2020 alongwith photographs on his whatsapp number.  On the complaint of the complainant, technician of OP number 2 visited the house of complainant for inspection, but the said technician did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant, though the technician of the OP offered 50% of the amount after talking to higher authorities.  The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OPs, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.95,000/- spent on the paint and Rs.42,000/- on the labour charges alongwith interest and further claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and further to pay Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are  taken up on the grounds that complainant is not a consumer as there is neither any manufacturing defect nor any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1 and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant visited the shop of OP and purchased the product of Asian paints i.e. Asian Royal and Asian Apcolite Advance and gave assurance for the standards of OP number 2.  It has been denied that the painter was provided by OP number 1.  It is stated that peeling off paint was not due to the defect in paint as the peeling off is in patches and not throughout. The said interior site was a repainting site and it was fourth painting cycle since construction. However, the defect in painting technique has been observed.  It has been denied that any painter was ever provided to the complainant. Lastly, the OP number 1 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that present complaint is abuse of process of law and is not maintainable,  that the averments of the complaint are vague and baseless and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP.  On merits, it is stated that on the insistences of the complainant exterior water base primer was applied on interior surface followed by Apcolite Advance and the base preparation was done with chalk powder hand made putty.  It is stated further that after receipt of the complaint of the complainant,  the technician of the OP visited the house of the complainant for inspection of the paint etc.  After considering the complainant’s criticality and as a goodwill gesture and as per company policies, representative of the company offered 50% of the product compensation for product expenses, but the complainant refused to accept the said offer, but it is stated that there is no fault  of the OP. Any deficiency or negligence on the part of OP number 2 has been denied.

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

5.             The complainant has also filed rejoinders to the written replies filed by OP number 1 and 2 denying the averments mentioned therein and has reiterated the allegations leveled in the complaint.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued the complainant approached the OP number 1 and purchased various products manufactured by  OP number 2 i.e. Asian Royal and Asian Apco Advance and painter was also provided by OP number 1.  The learned counsel for the complainant has argued vehemently that in the very short span of paint, cracks were developed in the paint applied on the walls and roof of the house of the complainant, as such, the said defect was brought to the notice of OP number 1 immediately, who admitted the  fact that the paint in question is suffering with manufacturing defect. The complainant  also sent emails to the OP number 2 regarding the defect in the paint. Further case of complainant is that he sent message to OP number 1 on 28.8.2020 alongwith photographs on his whatsapp number.  On the complaint of the complainant, technician of OP number 2 visited the house of complainant for inspection, but the said technician did not give any satisfactory rely to the complainant, though the technician of the OP offered 50% of the amount after talking to higher authorities.  The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OPs, but all in vain. As such, the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.  

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs though admitted the sale and purchase of the paint in question, but denied any defect therein.  However, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the OP number 2 that after considering the complainant’s criticality and as a goodwill gesture and as per company policies, representative of the company offered 50% of the product compensation for product expenses, but the complainant refused to accept the said offer. Lastly, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

8.             To support the contention of the complainant, complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit,  Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 copies of estimates, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-14 copies of chat exchanged between the complaint and OPs, Ex.C-15 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-16 postal receipts and Ex.C-17 affidavit of Manjit Singh Chauhan expert painter, who has alleged in the affidavit that the said contract was provided to him by the OP number 1  and the paint was defective one, wherein cracks were developed in the said paint. Ex.C-18 to Ex.C-31 are the photographs of walls etc. On the other hand, the OPs number 1 and 2 have placed on records only affidavits, but no evidence of any kind has been produced on record.

9.             After hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, we find that though the complainant has produced only estimate and has not produced any bill/invoice of the paint, but this fact has been admitted by OP number 1 in the written reply that various paint items were sold to the complainant.  We have also perused the photographs Ex.C-18 to Ex.C-31, which reveal clearly that the paint applied on the house walls and roofs of the complainant started peeling off, but there is no such expert report on record to show that the paint in question was defective one.  We have also perused the written reply of the OP number 2, wherein the OP number 2 has clearly mentioned that OP number 2 as a good gesture is ready to refund to the complainant 50% of the cost of the product purchased by the complainant. The complainant has averred that he has spent an amount of Rs.95000/- on the paint material etc.  applied on the walls/roof of the house of the complainant.  Since the complainant has claimed huge amount on account of paint, labour and compensation etc, but we may accept the contention of OP number 2 as mentioned in the reply that Op number 2 is ready to pay 50% of the total amount of paint material. Accordingly, we find that ends of justice would be met, if the OP number 2 is directed to pay 50% of the total amount of Rs.95,000/- allegedly spent on the paint material. We may mention that though the complainant has alleged in the complaint that he spent an amount of Rs.42,000/- on labour charges, but the complainant has not produced any such receipt showing payment of this amount to any one, as such, we are unable to reach on a conclusion how much amount he had paid to the labourer.

10.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.47,500/- only. We further direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

11.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

12.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        September 5, 2023.