Kerala

Idukki

CC/3/2017

Assis P K - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muhammed - Opp.Party(s)

31 Oct 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :27/03/17

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31^st day of October 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 03/2017

Between

Complainant : Assis P.E.,

Puthenveettil,

Chilave P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Pin -685 586.

And

Opposite Party : Muhammad,

Puthenparambil House,

Chilave P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Pin – 685 586.

(By Adv: Haneefa Rawther P.H.)

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant engaged the painting work of his newly constructed building to the opposite party, a painting contractor, for an amount of RS.2,20,000/- in the month of June 2015. But the opposite party failed to finish the work within the agreed time. More over the painting work done by the opposite party is very defective, the opposite party used poor quality paints and the painting work done by the opposite party badly affected the beauty of the building. When the complainant approached the opposite party for finishing the painting works, at that time opposite party said that he will finish the work after the house warming ceremony. Thereafter also opposite party failed to finish the work of the complainant's house. Opposite party used low quality paints and putty for this work and it caused to fade the colour and almost all part of the walls affected fungus and due to this, the condition of the building is in a stage of repainting. When the complainant approached another person for repainting building he demanded 3 Lakhs rupees.

(Cont.....2)

-2-

The opposite party used inferior quality of materials for painting the house, this act of the opposite party is a gross deficiency in service, for this the complainant approached this Forum for getting relief such as to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,80,000/- as compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version admitting the alleged painting works. Opposite party further contented that complainant has not paid the whole labour charge. The complainant himself purchased the painting materials and the opposite party used it for painting work. Opposite party completed all the painting works of the complainant within time as agreed. The complainant has not a case regarding the workmanship of the opposite party. But the allegation of the complainant is against the quality of the paint. At the same time the manufacturer of the paint is not made as a party in this complaint. Since the allegation regarding the quality of the paint, the manufacturer is a necessary party of this complaint. Hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

 

Opposite party further contented that the complainant approached this Forum after 1 ½ year of the completion of the painting work. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. The defects are pointed out by the complainant are only due to the improper maintenance of the building and the complainant has no right to put any allegation against the painting work of the complainant.

 

Due to the institution of this complaint the opposite party caused much damage in his profession and it furnished his reputation and the complainant is liable to pay compensation cost to the opposite party.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and Ext.P1 letter and by one Xavier Augustin, who was examined as PW2.

 

From the side of the opposite party the opposite party and one Jubin Mathew was examined as DW1 and DW2 respectively. The bill issued by DW2 is marked as Ext.R1.

 

Heard both sides,

(Cont.....3)

-3-

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsels for both parties and had gone through the records.

 

It is an admitted fact that the complainant engaged opposite party for the painting work of his newly constructed building. The allegation leveled against the opposite party is that opposite party failed to complete the painting work within the agreed time and he used inferior quality paint for painting the house this caused fading of colour and due to that the building lost its beauty, when the complainant approached another painter, he demanded 3 Lakhs rupees for repainting the house.

 

On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that there is no work contract between the complainant and the opposite party regarding the completion of the painting within a specific period. The counsel further argued that the allegation is totally against the inferior quality of the paint, but the manufacturer of the paint is not mode as a party in the complaint.

 

The counsel further contented that the complainant failed to produce a specific quotation showing the expense alleged to be incurred for re-painting the building, except a letter form a person who was examined as PW1. The learned counsel further argued that the complainant approached this Forum after a long period of 1 ½ year of the completion of the painting works.

 

On going through the point of arguments put forwarded by the counsels of both parties, Forum found that the complainant is approached before this Forum after 1 ½ year of the alleged painting works, which is specifically admitted by the complainant when he was cross examined.

 

In this case complainant averred that opposite party used inferior quality of paint. But as pointed out by the counsel for the opposite party, it is seen that the

(Cont.....4)

-4-

complainant is failed to implead the manufacturer of the paint, since they are the authority to answer the allegation whether the paint used by the opposite party for painting the alleged building is poor in quality.

 

Like wise the complainant admitted that the painting works was done by the opposite party in a rainy season and from the deposition it is very clear that the works are done in hurry burry, for conducting house warming. This may cause fading of the colour of the paint.

 

On an overall evaluation of the evidence on record it is seen that the opposite party purchased paint from an authorized paint shop and it is is evident from Ext.R1 receipt and deposition of DW2, the owner of the paint shop and if the damage of the painting caused due to the inferior quality as well as the low workmanship, the manufacturer of the paint also to be made as a necessary party along with the painter.

 

More over except mere pleading and deposition, no expert evidence is produced by the complainant to convince the Forum and for corroborating the averments in the complaint. Since absence of an expert opinion regarding the defect of the panting and damages caused to the building, Forum cannot consider the averments of the complainant. Also Ext.P1 cannot be considered as a part of evidence since it is only a letter and is not work quotation.

 

Under the above circumstances, Forum is of a considered view that, the evidence adduced by the complainant is not sufficient to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence complaint dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective cost.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of October, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

(Cont.....5)

-5-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 -Assis P.E.

PW2 - P.A.Xavier

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Muhammad P.M.

DW2 - Jubin Mathew

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Letter

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 -The bill issued by DW2

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT