PARAS TRADING CO. vs BALDEVBHAI CHHOTUBHAI SOLANKI

THIS appeal arises from order dated 26.7.2000 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bharuch in Complaint Application No. 159 of 1998 directing the opponent Asian Paints Limited and Paras Trading Company to pay jointly and severally Rs. 6,180/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from 7.11.1998 till payment and cost and compensation respectively in the sum of Rs. 500/- each, in all Rs. 1,000/-.

WHEN this appeal came up for hearing, no one has remained present for either of the parties. Appellant has not supplied any of the sets required for the members of this Commission. There is only one file. Yet, we have gone through the impugned order and the memorandum of appeal. It would appear from the facts set out in the impugned order that the complainant (respondent herein) had purchased colour goods manufactured by opponent No. 1 company from opponent No. 2 with a view to get his house coloured. After applying the colour in question to the house it transpired that the colour was of inferior quality and it gave out a dirty shape to the house. It was, therefore, apparent that there was manufacturing/production defect in the colour supplied to the complainant. The complainant, therefore, gave notice to the opponents but the opponents did not act according to the said notice. The complainant, therefore, filed complaint before the learned Forum praying for compensation including compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the head of mental agony and hardship and cost quantified at Rs. 2,000/-. In spite of the fact that the opponents were served with the process of the complaint, no one appeared before the learned Forum and no reply was filed. Complainant produced material/evidence before the learned Forum in the form of two bills for the purchase of the colour goods for Rs. 6,179.50 each (Exhs. 12/1 and 12/2). It would also appear from the affidavit and copies of correspondence filed on behalf of the complainant that one Mr. Hemant Soni, Sales Officer of opponent No. 1 company and one Mr. Ashok Shah, owner of opponent No. 2 had gone to inspect the house of the complainant and yet they did not give any reply to the grievance made by the complainant in respect of the inferior quality of the colour supplied by the opponents. Even thereafter the service supervisor Mr. Sunilbhai Pawar on behalf of opponent No. 1 company had inspected the complainant''s house. That was also not followed by any positive response from the opponents. The complainant had also written letters which have been referred to by the learned Forum. Since there was no response to those letters, the complainant was required to issue notice dated 20.8.1998 through his learned Advocate. The opponents did not respond to that notice also. That is how the complainant was required to approach the learned Forum with the complaint in question. After appreciating the documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that actual damage suffered by the complainant was to the tune of Rs. 6,180/- in the form of bills of colour goods produced by the complainant before the learned Forum. The learned Forum, therefore, directed payment of this amount with interest as stated above. It would appear from the appeal filed by the original opponents that the opponents had appeared in the complaint but as the learned Advocate for the opponents had negotiated for settlement with the complainant, he was not engaged and the parties settled the matter. In spite of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the complainant suppressed the matter of settlement before the learned Forum. This resulted into the opponent making inquiry into the matter and filing of appeal before this Commission.

In the grounds against the impugned order, the opponents have asserted that wood-primer colour was supplied to the complainant. Such colour could not have been applied on the walls. Hence, the grievance of the complainant before the learned Forum was apparently misconceived. We cannot countenance both these contentions appearing in the appeal for the simple reason that the original opponents, now appellants have not set out any particulars with regard to alleged settlement in this appeal. They have also not set out any report of the inspection showing that the colour which was meant for applying on the wooden doors and windows was applied on the walls of the house. In the absence of any material to support the aforesaid contentions, it is difficult to find that the grievance of the complainant was misconceived. Sufficient opportunity has been accorded to both the parties but they have defaulted in appearing before this Commission. Under such circumstances, addressing to the merits of the matter, we find that the grievance of the complainant before the learned Forum was well justified.

INSOFAR as direction with regard to interest is concerned, we refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., I (2001) SLT 300=I (2001) ACC 151 (SC)=(2001) 2 SCC 9, and bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, we propose to award interest at the rate of 9 per cen instead of 12 per cent awarded by the learned Forum. INSOFAR as direction with regard to compensation on the head of mental agony and hardship is concerned, bearing in mind the decision of the Apex Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India, II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=IV (2000) SLT 654=(2000) 6 SCC 113, this being a matter concerning contract for sale and purchase, compensation on the head of mental agony and hardship is not available to the complainant. Direction with regard to award of such compensation will have to be set aside. In the result, following order is passed. ORDER Impugned order dated 26.7.2000 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bharuch in Complaint Application No. 159 of 1998 is hereby maintained except with regard to rate of interest which is reduced from 12 per cent to 9 per cent and with regard to direction for payment of compensation in the sum of Rs. 500/- on the head of mental agony and hardship which direction is hereby set aside. This appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs insofar as this appeal is concerned. Appeal partly allowed.