Ludhiana: Paint firm, associates told to refund ₹4 lakh, pay ₹50k compensation for incomplete work

The order was passed by a bench comprising president Sanjeev Batra and member Monika Bhagat on a complaint filed by Ajay Sood, a resident of Phase-1, Urban Estate, Dugri Road

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, has directed Asian Paints Limited and three associates of the company to refund ₹4.05 lakh to a 70-year-old resident after finding that contracted painting work at his house was left incomplete and substandard.

According to the complaint, the work was abandoned midway and the portion executed was of poor quality and not in accordance with the agreed terms. (HT File)

The order was passed by a bench comprising president Sanjeev Batra and member Monika Bhagat on a complaint filed by Ajay Sood, a resident of Phase-1, Urban Estate, Dugri Road.

Sood approached the commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, stating that in September 2023 he had purchased paints and allied services for interior and exterior painting of his house for ₹6.50 lakh. Of this amount, he had paid ₹4.05 lakh to the service providers.

According to the complaint, the work was abandoned midway and the portion executed was of poor quality and not in accordance with the agreed terms. Despite repeated requests and even a legal notice, the company and its associates did not resumed nor completed the work, allegedly causing financial loss and mental harassment to the complainant.

Contesting the complaint, Asian Paints Limited argued that it had acted merely as a facilitator under its “Asian Paints Beautiful Home Painting Services” model and that responsibility for execution rested with the actual service provider. The company denied any deficiency in service and maintained that delays occurred due to interruptions at the site.

However, the commission observed that the representatives involved in the transaction were employees of the company and that the promised services, as reflected in the quotation and service documents, were not delivered. The panel noted that the work had been abandoned midway and held that the conduct of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice.

Rejecting the company’s contention that it was only a facilitator, the commission held that the complainant had hired the services for complete painting work and peace of mind, but instead suffered inconvenience and mental agony.

Partly allowing the complaint, the commission directed all the opposite parties, jointly and severally, to refund ₹4,05,000 to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of the order. In case of default, the amount will carry interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of the order till realisation.

The panel also awarded ₹50,000 as composite compensation for harassment and mental agony, directing that this amount too be paid within 30 days.