NEW DELHI: A consumer court in Jammu and Kashmir has held Indigo Paints responsible for supplying defective paint products and ordered company to compensate the consumerThe case was filed by the Muzamil Traders before the district consumer commission in Baramulla. A local paint trader Muzamil Hamid, who alleged that the product he bought from the Indigo Paints was not up to the standard quality. He added that he suffered financial losses and damage to his business reputation after the product reached customers and they started complaining about it. The complainant further alleged that defective products worth Rs 10 lakh had been supplied, and that Rs. 1.35 lakh remained pending towards the company after the products were opened and found defective.However, the company argued that the transaction was commercial in nature and that the complainant, being a trader, could not claim protection under the Consumer Protection Act. It also contended that there were prescribed ways to apply the paint, and that if proper precautions were not taken or there was an error in workmanship, the company could not be held liable for any such loss.What did the consumer court say?The commission rejected the objection made by Indigo Paints, observing that a small shopkeeper purchasing goods to earn his livelihood through self-employment can still fall within the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.“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 had failed to produce any such evidence, records, or expert opinion to substantiate that the product was not defective or that the defects arose due to improper use.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 per cent 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 the defective goods already supplied, and an additional Rs 3 lakh as compensation for loss of goodwill and mental agony.The consumer court ordered that the entire amount be paid within 30 days, failing which it would carry 9 per cent annual interest until realisation.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.
