A consumer court in Jammu and Kashmir has held Indigo Paints responsible for supplying defective paint products and directed the company to compensate the consumer. The case was filed by Muzamil Traders before the district consumer commission in Baramulla.
Background of the Case
Local paint trader Muzamil Hamid alleged that the product he bought from Indigo Paints was not up to standard quality. He claimed financial losses and damage to his business reputation after customers complained about the defective paint. The complainant further alleged that defective products worth Rs 10 lakh had been supplied, and Rs 1.35 lakh remained pending after the products were opened and found defective.
Company's Defense
Indigo Paints argued that the transaction was commercial in nature, and the complainant, being a trader, could not claim protection under the Consumer Protection Act. The company also contended that there were prescribed ways to apply the paint, and if proper precautions were not taken or there was an error in workmanship, it could not be held liable.
Consumer Court's Ruling
The commission rejected Indigo Paints' objection, observing that a small shopkeeper purchasing goods to earn his livelihood through self-employment falls within the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The commission stated, "The complainant is a small shopkeeper carrying on his business on a limited scale to earn his livelihood. There is no evidence on record to show that the complainant is engaged in large-scale commercial activity. Therefore, the complainant falls within the ambit of consumer."
The commission noted that the complainant had placed evidence including purchase invoices, photographs of defective paint, and details of customer grievances, while the opposite parties failed to produce any such evidence, records, or expert opinion to substantiate that the product was not defective or that defects arose due to improper use.
Order and Compensation
Holding that supplying defective goods amounts to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice, the commission directed Indigo Paints to replace the unused defective products with the same quality and standard, or alternatively refund the cost of the unused products along with 10 percent interest from the date of purchase till the date of the order. Indigo was further directed to pay Rs 1.35 lakh as the cost of defective goods already supplied, and an additional Rs 3 lakh as compensation for loss of goodwill and mental agony. The entire amount must be paid within 30 days, failing which it will carry 9 percent annual interest until realisation.
Significance of the Order
The order reinforces that businesses cannot avoid responsibility merely by calling a transaction "commercial" when the buyer is a small self-employed trader affected by defective goods.
About the Author
TOI Legal Desk: The TOI Legal Desk is a dedicated team of journalists committed to tracking and reporting on courts, legal developments, and judicial proceedings across the country and world.
