1. Version of claimant in pursuance to this claim filed under section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be called the Act) is that he had purchased a Gallon Enamel of Sun Star (paint) for Rs. 850/- from defendant and in this regard receipt dated 06.02.2013 was also issued; claimant hired a painter who when check the product, it was found under-graded/low quality besides expired/destroyed; claimant approached defendant who started to use abusive language; claimant served a legal notice on 23.02.2013 to defendant which was not responded.
Claimant had prayed for issuance of order to defendant for payment of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) as damage on account of mental torture as well as agony suffered by him.
2. Defendant submitted his written statement where objection of maintainability of this claim was taken.
3. Today I heard both sides on question of maintainability.
4. Learned counsel for defendant contends that claimant after mixing kerosene oil had used the paint which means that it had lost its originality so how it can be said as a defective product.
5. Learned counsel for claimant on the other hand maintains that it was the duty of defendant to provide the product of standard, quality and of proper use but when there was a deviation from said quality, product shall be defective.
6. At the very outset I must note here that claimant has admitted before me that he had opened the paint box and mixed the kerosene oil for its use. However he adds that there was no expression/image of the colour on its application at relevant place.
7. Under the Act, there are various aspects to say a product as defective. In view of Section 5 it is defective if there is a material deviation from declared construction or composition of product. By virtue of Section 6 it shall be defective if there exists an alternative design. According to Section 7 a product is defective because of inadequate warning and finally under Section 8 of the Act, it is defective due of non-conformity of express warranty.
8. On Court's direction learned counsel for claimant had read out relevant paragraphs of claim where even by way of imaginations there is no mention about defect of product on the grounds as mentioned in earlier paragraph, hence case is out of said provisions of law.
9. It is not the case of claimant that defendant had persuaded him to purchase the product while leaving the other brands/make available in market. Learned counsel for claimant admitted that brand was choice of his client and not of defendant.
10. Even this case does not fall under Section 21 of the Act which is about false, deceptive or misleading representation. No where claimant asserted that defendant ever made false, deceptive or misleading representation that the product was of particular kind, standard, quality, grade, quantity, composition, style or model. Therefore by no stretch of imaginations it can be said that product in this case was defective and at the most it appears to be a case of dissatisfaction of claimant that after application of paint at the relevant place it did not give a reasonable look/image.
11. In view of above I hold that this claim is not maintainable hence it is dismissed with no order as to the costs. File shall be consigned to record room after its due completion.