The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. On 25/04/2017, the complainant purchased Indigo SPL GREY packed 07/2016 B NOTC 270 paints in the category of tile coat platinum series from the shop of the first opposite party for Rs.12,262/- (Rupees Twelve thousand two hundred and sixty two only). The second opposite party is the manufacturer of the said paints. As per the instructions given by the first opposite party, the expert labours were painted the roof tiles of the complainant. At the time of purchase, the first opposite party made to believe that five years warranty is provided to the paints. But the paints gone off the tiles in most area of roof. So on 30/11/2017 the complainant contacted the second opposite party through e mail and registered a complaint. Subsequently the marketing manager and other representatives of the second opposite party came to the spot and convinced the grievance of the complainant. The marketing manager of the second opposite party informed that a report will be handed over to the paint company and quality controller will inspect the flake off and discolouration of the paint and only thereafter the paint will be replaced. But so far the opposite parties did not compensate the loss incurred to the complainant. The complainant lost Rs.12,262/- as the cost of the paint and Rs.25,000/- also lost as the expenses incurred for labour charges for the painting. The complainant stated that he has to spend Rs.40,000/- more for painting of the roof tiles again. The complainant stated that the opposite parties sold inferior quality paint to the complainant. The act of the opposite parties caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant and so the complainant demanded Rs.50,000/- as compensation from them. The complainant also demanded Rs.40,000/- as the cost of painting of the roof tiles along with cost of the proceedings.
2. The complaint is admitted on file and issued notices to the opposite parties. The opposite parties filed their versions separately.
3. The first opposite party is a dealer of the second opposite party who manufactured the paints. The first opposite party denied all allegation raised in the complaint except those are specifically admitted in the version . The first opposite party admitted the purchase of paint by the complainant as stated in the complaint. According to the first opposite party warranty was not provided to the product as stated in the complaint. The warranty is provided by the manufacturer not by the dealer and there is no responsibility on the part of the first opposite party. It is further stated that the first opposite party is only a retail outlet selling the products of the second opposite party. The first opposite party did not receive any complaint against the product of the second opposite party so far from any of the customers. According to the first opposite party, he has given proper instruction about the procedure for use of the paint and same was convinced by the complainant also. It is stated that when the first opposite party received the complaint of paint gone off the tiles, second opposite party and the second opposite party managed to sent market manager to the spot and get inspected the factual situation . If there is any manufacturing defect is found then the responsibilities goes with the second opposite party. According to the first opposite party the representatives of the second opposite party convinced that the complainant purchased total of 40 litters of paints of tile coat from the shop and used some portion of paints on cleaned and new tiles and the balance paints used on the un cleaned and old tiles. If the paint was used on the uncleaned surface resulting damages to the complainant, then the first opposite party is not responsible for the same. It is unfortunate to blame the first opposite party if any loss is caused due to the negligent act of the complainant himself. So the first opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
4. The second opposite party also filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The second opposite party denied the purchase of paint by the complainant on 25/04/2017 for Rs.12,262/-. The second opposite party further denied the contention of the complainant that the complainant painted the tiles on the basis of instruction given by the first opposite party and later the paint goes off the tiles. The second opposite party denied the allegation of assurance of 5 years warranty and discolouration of paint as well as gone off. But the second opposite party admitted visit of representative to the house of the complainant on the basis of registration of a complaint. But the contention of the complainant that the representatives of the second opposite party was convinced of defects of paint is also denied by the second opposite party. The statement of the complainant that he was informed of the handing over of inspection report and assurance of replacement of paints by the representatives of the second opposite party is false and denied in the version. The second opposite party totally denied the statements of the complainant that the paints lacked quality and spent Rs.12,262/- as cost of the paint and spent another Rs.25,000/- as labour charges . According to the second opposite party there was no misrepresentation regarding the quality of the product. The second opposite party also denied the claim of complainant that Rs.40,000/- is needed for repainting the tiles and the claim of financial loss is also false . The complainant did not suffer any kind of mental agony and hardship due to the act of the opposite parties. According to the second opposite party at the time of inspection by the representative it was found that the complainant used old tiles for roofing for a large area and painting was done improperly with unskilled labours. The painting was done on the tiles without removing oil and mud. On enquiry it was convinced that painting was done without cleaning old tiles and painting was done by the complainant himself. The water used by the complainant for painting was in a disproportionate manner and against the prescription. The second opposite party contended that the paints manufactured by the company shall be used in accordance with prescribed manner otherwise the responsibility of the second opposite party is exonerated. Any deviation from the direction of use of product by the complainant will cut short the durability. It is contended by the second opposite party that the complainant has to prove that the product is purchased from the opposite parties. According to the second opposite party the paint bottle as well as brochure of the product clearly shows the manner in which paint shall be used. So in such a condition the complainant cannot use the product on the basis of the direction given by the first opposite party. According to the second opposite party no guarantee is providing to the tile coat paint purchased by the complainant and no complaint is received from any of its customers so far. It is stated in the version that complaint is ill motivated and intended to tarnish the business image of the opposite parties. The act of the complainant is defamatory and is an attempt to make unlawful gain. So the second opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
5. The complainant and the opposite parties filed affidavits. The complainant produced documents and marked as Ext. A1 to A3 documents. Ext. A1 document is the purchase bill dated 25/04/2017 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A2 (series) document is the copies of complaints made through email by the complainant. Ext.A3 document is the photograph of roof tiles. The first opposite party produced a document and marked as Ext. B1 document. Ext. B1 document is the copy of brochure describing the method of use of tile coat paint produced by the second opposite party. The complainant filed an application numbered as IA 470/2021 Commission to inspect the tile roof painting. But no further steps were taken by the complainant. The second opposite party filed chief affidavit of chief chemist of the second opposite party as witness and same is numbered as IA 554/22. But no copy of affidavit is served to the complainant and the witness was not examined.
6. Heard both sides in detail. Perused documents and affidavit. The points arisen for the consideration of the Commission are as follows:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) If yes, what will be reliefs and cost?
7. Point No.1 &2
The grievance stated in the complaint is that the complainant purchased paints from the shop of the first opposite party on 25/04/2017 after making payment of Rs.12,262/-. In order to prove the purchase of the paints, the complainant produced bill dated 25/04/2017 issued by the first opposite party and same is marked by the Commission as Ext. A1 document. It is stated in the complaint as well as in affidavit that the paint used on the roof tiles of the complainant gone off within a short period and decolourisation was also seen on the tiles. The complainant produced Ext. A2 series of documents to show the details of complaints made before the second opposite party regarding the damage caused due to defect of paints. The complainant produced photographs roof tiles showing condition of the paints used on the tiles of roofs and marked as Ext. A3 document. According to the complainant the product of the second opposite party is inferior in quality and there is defects in the product. But on the contrary, the opposite parties contended that paint is not used in accordance with the direction of the manufacturer and unskilled labours were involved in the painting. The first opposite party produced the brochure issued by the second opposite party regarding the direction to use the paints purchased by the complainant. The second opposite party even contended that the paints used for the painting of roof tiles were not manufactured by the second opposite party. At the same time the complainant stated that the product got warranty converge as informed by the first opposite party and he used the paints under the instruction of the first opposite party. When going through the evidence adduced by both sides it can find that Ext. A1 document shows the purchase of paints from the shop of first opposite party and first opposite party did not adduce contra evidence to deny the issuance of Ext. A1 document. These facts indicate that the paint is manufactured by the second opposite party. The first opposite party also admitted the dealership of product manufactured by the second opposite party. Moreover it can be find that the opposite parties admitted the visit and inspection done by the representatives of the second opposite party in the house of the complainant. It is further admitted in the version of the first opposite party that when he received a complaint of defect of paints immediately contacted the second opposite party for actions. So opposite parties cannot keep aloof from the liability arising out of sale of paints manufactured and sold by the them. The contention raised by the second opposite party with regard to warranty of the product cannot be believable. The version filed by the first opposite party stated that warranty of paint is the responsibility of the manufacturer. If the product was not under warranty it would have mentioned in the version itself by the first opposite party. So absence of categorical denial by the first opposite party shows that the product is carried warranty and opposite parties acted without bonofides. The statements of the opposite parties that the complainant used old tiles for roofing in large area and painting was done improperly with unskilled labours cannot be taken into account. Further the allegation that the painting was done on the tiles without removing mud and oil is also not believable. It has come out in the evidence of the complainant that he used the paints in connection with construction of a new house. The statement of the complainant with regard to the condition of tiles is more believable and match with circumstances. So the allegation of use of old tiles for roofing and painting by the opposite parties is unsustainable and unbelievable. As per the contention of the opposite parties, another reason for paint gone off the tiles was use of paint with large quantity of water. More over the opposite parties did not produce evidence to show the exact area where the purchased paint is applied by the complainant. According to the opposite parties, the complainant used the paint against the direction given by the manufacturer. From the evidences it can be seen that the opposite parties did not take any steps to find out the reasons for the paint gone off and discolouration by using scientific method. So Commission finds that the opposite parties acted negligently towards the complainant. It is stated in the version that the first opposite party had given proper instruction about the procedure to be adopted for the use of paints manufactured by the second opposite party. This statement shows that no written instruction was issued to the complainant at the time of sale of paint. At the same time in version of the second opposite party it is stated that the complainant was not permitted to use the paint in accordance with the direction of first opposite party. But the second opposite party failed to adduce evidence to show that paint bottle carries instruction or any brochure is handed over to the complainant at the time of sale by the first opposite party but failed to adduce evidence with regard to the way in which paint was applied on roof. The damage of paint was caused within a short period of time. So considering above narrated facts and evidences this commission finds that the paint sold to the complainant by the first opposite party is manufactured by the second opposite party and paint is suffered manufacturing defect. The opposite parties acted negligently towards the complainant after receiving the complaint of defects.
The claim of the complainant for labour charges incurred for painting lacked evidence and the Commission cannot address that aspect. So the complaint is allowed partly in the following manner.
- The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.12,262/- to the complainant as the cost of defective paints purchased from the opposite parties.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as the compensation for sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order; otherwise the entire amount shall bear 9% of interest per annum from date of order till realisation.
Dated this 12th day of January , 2023.
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A3
Ext.A1: Purchase bill dated 25/04/2017 issued by the first opposite party to the
complainant.
Ext.A2: Copies of complaints made through email by the complainant.
Ext A3: Photograph of roof tiles.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party:Ext.B1
Ext.B1 : Copy of brochure describing the method of use of tile coat paint produced by
the second opposite party.
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
