State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pidilite Industries Limited Through ... vs Abhishek Sharma S/O. Janakraj Sharma on 29 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/FA/205/2025
(Against the Order dated 11th March 2025 in Complaint DC/AB1/44/CC/411/2023 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh district commission)
PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Through its representative
PRESENT ADDRESS - 6TH FLOOR VIKAS DEED LAXMI NAGAR , SV ROAD GOREGAON ,
DISTRICT CENTRE , NORTH EAST,DELHI.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
ABHISHEK SHARMA S/o. janakraj sharma
PRESENT ADDRESS - 1672SECTOR 15 , PANCHKULA,HARYANA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. RAJESH KUMAR ARYA , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
ROHIT CHANDEL ADV.
DATED: 29/12/2025
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Additional Bench) Appeal No. : 205 of 2025 Date of Institution : 24.06.2025 Date of Decision : 29.12.2025 Pidilite Industries Limited, through its Director/Proprietor, Office Address SCO No.1, Madhya Marg, Sector 26, Chandigarh 160019.
------Appellant Versus Abhishek Sharma s/o Sh. Janak Raj Sharma r/o 1672, Sector 15, Panchkula, Haryana, 134113.
...Respondent Appeal against the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.411/2023.
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR.RAJESH K.ARYA,MEMBER
For the appellant : Sh. Rohit Chandel, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the respondent alongwith
Sh.Abhishek Sharma, respondent in person.
PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.04.2025, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as "the Ld. District Commission"), whereby consumer complaint filed by the com plainant/respondent was partly allowed in the following manner ;
(i) to refund the amount of 8,77,304/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f. the date of institution of the present consumer complaint, till the date of actual realization.
(ii) to also pay 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the harassment caused as well as litigation expenses.
2. Before the Ld. District Commission, it was case of the complainant that he had started construction of his house at Panchkula. On 24.12.2021, Mr. Archit, applicator of the Opposite Party approached the complainant and convinced him to get waterproofing done and also suggested URP for all the rooms/balconies and 2K product for the washrooms. Accordingly, complainant purchased 160 litres of Dr. Fixit from Krishna Hardware for 35,000/- and utilized the services of the Opposite Party through Dr. Fixit's applicator i.e. Mr.Archit and it was agreed that the complainant would pay 20,000/- i.e. 10/- per sq. ft. (10x2000) towards the cost of labour to Mr. Archit. The complainant paid half amount i.e. 10,000/- to Mr. Archit and the remaining 10,000/-was to be paid on completion of the work. Thereafter, the Opposite Party sent their team and carried out the waterproofing on all walls and roof of the house. On 23.1.2022, despite spending huge amount on the waterproofing work, leakage occurred from the roof of the building and excessive water emerged on the walls. The complainant immediately informed about the situation and shared pictures with Mr. Archit as well as executive of Dr. Fixit but they failed to resolve the same. The complainant also raised complaint on the email ID [email protected] provided by the Opposite Party on almost all of their products. Thereafter, a number of visits were made by the executives of the Opposite Party at the house of the complainant but no concrete solution was provided to the complainant and the matter was prolonged on one pretext or the other. The executives of the Opposite Party tried to find fault on the part of the complainant and even blamed him for using wrong products. The complainant replied that he had used the products which were suggested by the applicator of the Opposite Party and even the work of water proofing was also carried out by the applicator of the Opposite Party. Subsequently, Opposite Party sent an email dated 9.9.2022 (Annexure C-3) acknowledging that failure was because of wrong base/preparation/application by the applicator. Thereafter, Opposite party suggested the complainant to take quotation from the list of applicators shared by it for resolving the problem. Accordingly the complainant shared some quotations with the Opposite Party and after going through the same, the Opposite Party approved the quotation (Annexure C-5 & C-6) sent by the applicator Mr. Vikas and the complainant was told that they are closing the quote of 75,000/-. The complainant was assured by the Opposite Party on WhatsApp communication that it would rectify the mistake and would reimburse the amount of loss incurred by the complainant. However, even after 8 months, Opposite Party did not rectify the problem and did not provide concrete solution to the complainant about the problem of leakage despite repeated requests by him. The complainant had spent huge amount on the water proofing work. The complainant initially had spent an amount of 6,73,833/- on waterproofing of the building as well as for extra material used for construction and after failure of the waterproofing on the part of the Opposite Party, he had further spent an amount of 2,03,471/- for rectification. It is pleaded that the complainant had spent total amount of 8,77,304/- only due to the failure on the part of the Opposite Party. When all efforts made by the complainant to seek redressal of his grievance could not get any tangible result, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, a consumer complaint was filed before the Learned District Commission seeking directions to refund/ reimburse the amount of 8,77,304/- towards the losses suffered by him alongwith interest besides compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, Opposite Party appeared before the Ld. District Commission and contested the complaint. In its written version, it was inter-alia stated that the answering opposite Party is engaged in the business activities relating to research, development, manufacturing and marketing of adhesives etc. However, the complainant has failed to establish whether the alleged URP Dr. Fixit Roof purchased by him was an authentic product purchased from the authorized dealer or distributor. It was denied that Mr. Archit was an applicator of the Opposite party. It was stated that every kind of contact made by the complainant was addressed and solution to that effect was provided to him. It was alleged that the complainant had failed to produce any evidence, including that of an expert to indicate that there was any manufacturing defect in the product. Certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint were made and pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
4.. On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. District Commission partly allowed the Complaint of the complainant/respondent, as noted in the opening para of this order.
5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party.
6. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 7 . It is the case of the appellant that the Learned District Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to consider the fact that the complaint was not maintainable and the same was liable to be rejected on the ground that the respondent had not impleaded the Applicator of the product who applied the product and the seller of the product from whom the product was purchased as the contractor/person through whom the product was applied was a necessary party in the said proceedings especially due to the fact that the requisite result of the product was to be obtained only if the product was applied strictly in accordance with the instructions/directions printed on the product and apprised to the respondent while the product was purchased. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Applicator and the appellant have no relation and have independent entity and relation, if any, between the Applicator and the Appellant was on principal to principal basis and not that of principal and agent, as such, in no circumstances the appellant could be held liable for negligence of the Applicator who despite being only necessary party had not been made a party to the present proceedings. It was further contended that the appellant used to provide training to various Applicators who voluntarily get themselves registered for training. Post training, the Applicators are issued Certificate of skilled Waterproofer(SWP) and it is mentioned therein that the said Applicator is trained by the Appellant but he is not an appointed agent of the appellant. Post training, such Applicator does his independent work as per the desire of the customer but the said Applicator is not on the role of the Appellant. It was further contended that the Appellant is merely a manufacturer of the product relating to waterproofing and does not provide any service relating to waterproofing and without there being given any finding about deficiency in service, the Learned District Commission directed the appellant to refund such a huge amount of Rs.8,77,304/- whereas respondent failed to substantiate his claim on the basis of documentary proof. It was further case of the appellant that it is only a manufacturer of products under the brand name Fevicol, Fevikwik, Dr.Fixit, Roff etc. which are sold through its authorized distributors but the Learned District Commission failed to take necessary steps for sending the sample of the product for analysis to an approved laboratory as without concrete evidence or any laboratory report or even the expert opinion to substantiate the allegations of misbranding or sub-standard but the respondent had not proved that the product was genuine and was purchased from an authorized distributor of the appellant. It was further contended that the respondent was informed of the fact that the appellant does not undertake any guarantee or provide assurance of any nature whatsoever in relation to the workmanship or quality of work of the applicators or service providers which are chosen at discretion of the customer and, as such, the claim if any under the complaint, is not maintainable against the appellant since the same falls outside the ambit of the warranty terms and conditions of the appellant for which the respondent had not registered . On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the order passed by the Learned District Commission is quite just and reasonable and does not call for any interference.
8. Undisputedly the appellant is engaged in the business activities relating to the research, development, manufacturing and marketing of adhesives, construction chemicals, specialty chemicals, consumer and maintenance product and it is manufacturer of various products which are consumed by various customers for application on various products. It is the case of the respondent that he was approached by Mr.Archit, who is applicator with the appellant and who convinced him to get the waterproofing done while constructing the new house. The respondent has placed on record annexure C-4 whatsapp chat to prove that Archit Gupta (8607777734) which was sent by one Firoz (9747849341) from Dr.Fixit, Mumbai Head Office, was the applicator of the appellant. In para-11 of the written version to the corresponding para- 11 of the complaint, it is admitted that the complainant/respondent was given the choice to take quotation from the list of applicators shared by the Opposite Party/appellant for problem solving. It was entirely the choice of the respondent as to which applicator he wanted to employ for further services with regard to the solving his problem. Thus, the list of applicators mentioned in Annexure C-4 was given by the appellant. It is not the case of the appellant that the applicator Mr.Archit was not a trained applicator. It is also not denied by the appellant that Shree Krishna Hardware, Industrial Area, Panchkula from where the respondent had purchased the product was not its authorized store or that the product used was not genuine and was a counterfeit. When respondent made complaint, even then the appellant had not objected to the authenticity of the product. The team which was appointed by the appellant to inspect the site also did not observe that the product used was not genuine and was a counterfeit, rather it admitted that the product supplied was good.
9. . The respondent sent emails and reply thereto was also received from the appellant which are Annexure C-3(colly). When the respondent made complaint to the appellant, it acknowledged that failure of the product was because of wrong base preparation/application by the applicator and appointed a team which observed as under :-
"This is in reference to your comments on the observations stated before from our team :-
1. We would like to inform that Roof seal classic was applied on RCC surface area of about 900 Sq. Ft. As per our specification this area needs 100 Kg of Roof Seal Classic (including primer) whereas the applicator has applied only 3 buckets 60 kg) in this area.
2. The applicator was supposed to provide proper slope by laying screed on the RCC mother slap so that there is no stagnant water over the applied coating. However, the same was not done on the desired manner and that has led to stagnation of water at roof. This further lead to leakage.
3. It was observed at your site that the applied coating in intact and has failed only at point where we had stagnant water because of improper slope.
4. The slope screed is very thin therefore undulations and cracks are unavoided.
5. Slope is also an issue for water ponding.
Basis above points, it clear that the failure is because of wrong base preparation/application by applicator. We have supplied a good product and assure good services always;-
As a solution we recommend the following:
RTC system has to be used on entire surface over terrace with doing all required repair and maintained slop on top"
10. From the list of applicators shared by the appellant for problem solving, the respondent shared some quotations with the appellant which he got from the applicators suggested by the appellant. After going through the quotations sent by the respondent to the appellant, the appellant approved the quotation sent by the applicator from its own list i.e. Mr. Vikas and the respondent was told that it was closing the quote of Rs.75,000/- sent by Mr. Vikas (Annexure C-6). The team appointed observed that the product was good but observed that due to improper slope water stagnated on the roof which led to leakage. The team observed that the applicator applied only 60 kg.. Roof Seal Classic (including primer) whereas it was 160 Kgs not 60 Kgs. Shree Krishna Hardware sold the product whereas the applicator applied the product of the appellant and there is no denying the fact that the product used was not of the appellant, as such, non-impleading of Shree Krishna Hardware store and the applicator have no effect on the matter in question. The respondent has given the detail of the amount of Rs.8,77,304/- (Annexure C-7 Colly) spent on water proofing and the same amount was rightly awarded by the Learned District Commission, which is as under ;
Sr.No. Particulars Amount
1. URP (160 Liters Approximately) Rs.35,000/-
2. Fibre Mesh Rs.3068/-
3. Paint Work material Rs.20,600/-
4. Paint Work material Rs.21,513/-
5. Labour Payment to applicator for Rs.10,000/-
Water Proofing
6. Product 2K payment was made to Rs.2,500/-
applicator's Labour
7. Loss of Construction Cost incurred Rs.4,63,152/-
on 2nd Floor including labour cost.
8. Paint Labour Cost incurred Rs.1,18,000/-
TOTAL Rs.6,73,833/-
AFTER WATER PROOFING
1. Asian water proofing products Rs.47,689/-
2. Paint work material Rs.10,882/-
3. Water proofing labour Rs.25,200/-
4. Paint labour Rs.1,14,600/-
5. Paint work material Rs. 5,100/-
TOTAL Rs.2,03,471/-
The learned District Commission while allowing the complaint rightly observed as under
;
"The complainant's further grievance is that the problem could not be resolved and he has suffered not only financial loss but also from mental agony and physical harassment on that account. It is clear from Annexure C-4 that Mr.Archit Gupta is mentioned as one of the applicators approved by the OP, hence the OP cannot take this defence that Mr.Archit Gupta is not its approved applicator. As the complainant has believed the OP and used its product and suffered from deficiency in service provided by the approved applicator of the OP, hence the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the OP is liable to compensate the complainant."
11. In view of the above, we find that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is based on correction appreciation of facts and evidence adduced by the parties and does not suffer from any illegality and perversity warranting interference of this Commission.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.
13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
..................
PADMA PANDEY PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J RAJESH KUMAR ARYA MEMBER