M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite party in COP.635/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), is the appellant.
(2.) The respondent herein as complainant, has filed a case before the District Forum, Chennai (South) for the recovery a sum of Rs.70,000/-, being the cost of the paint and labour incurred by the complainant, and for a further sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, on the grounds that he had purchased the paints, manufactured by the opposite party, on the basis of the quality assurance given by them in the advertisement as well on the basis of the warranty for a period of 5 years, by paying a sum of Rs.14,176.32 under various Invoices, that spending a sum of Rs.56,000/- towards the labour charges, he painted the new house, having qualified painter, following the instructions given by the opposite party, that the emulsion paints on the wall have started to peel off, not only on the inner walls, but also on the exterior walls of the house, that having complained to the opposite party also, it failed to yield any positive result, followed by a legal notice, that in view of the inferior quality and sub-standard paint supplied by the opposite party, the complainant was compelled to suffer a damage, monetary loss as well mental agony, for that, the opposite party should held responsible. Thus, the claim.
(3.) The appellant/opposite party in their Written Version inter alia contended, that the claim is barred by limitation, that the peeling off paint in the walls must be only due to seepage of water in the walls of the building, that the painter would not have followed the instructions of the opposite party properly while painting the products of the opposite party, for which, the opposite party cannot be held responsible and that the other allegations are specifically denied, thereby, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;