Kathmandu. 7 Advertising that it will last , inferior color to consumers, but without 7 months of not to hear when complaining, but to do anything. After the fact that Berger Paints went to consumer court after this behavior, and the court even found Berger guilty and even awarded compensation, the people who wore Berger’s color in their homes are now worried. Some have even called us and asked how to go to court because they are having the same problem. Some have said that they are worried about because they have just applied the color, and they regret using Berger’s color. After it was confirmed that Berger’s color was found to be infamous, customers are now reaching out to paint shops and dealers and asking about it. And to cover up the shame, the sellers of Berger are spreading the misconception that the news is fake, that there is no {{} lawsuit, that there is no , that there is no order. Some of the people who sell Berger’s colors have challenged us to show us the verdict in the case, and we will accept it. And today we are here with a copy of the judgment of the{{} court against Berger. And we are showing you how the court has decided to impose a fine after it was found that Berger’s color was inferior.

Berger Paints Victims Why did they go to court?

Deepak Raj Giri, a resident of Madhyapur Thimi Municipality Ward No. 3 of Bhaktapur district, complained to the dealer after starting{{}{{} after starting the Berger Paints that he had bought for 7 to 10 years . After that, the company came and tested the place where the paint was applied and gave the assurance even to reapply the paint. But after a few days of , the company said that we could not do any . Deepak Raj is not only Giri, but Lalitpur VDC . Ward No. 4 Siddhanta Shrestha, a permanent resident of Kathmandu, Budhanilkantha Municipality Ward No. 11, who is currently living in Budhanilkantha Municipality Ward No. 11{{}, also felt that Berger had cheated him in the same way. Dayaram Karki, a resident of Suryabinayak Municipality Ward No. 6 of Bhaktapur district, was also a victim of Berger Paints. Everyone’s problem was the same, 7 to 10 years means that Berger’s color was worn out in 6 months. At the time of sale, they said that the warranty lasts for 7 years, but after 6 months the color and the warranty was not given. In the court, Karki, Shrestha and Giri filed a complaint against Berger Jensen & Nicholson (Nepal) Pvt. Ltd. and Friends Forever Trading Pvt. Ltd. based in Bhaktapur. The proprietor of the company, Dinesh Giri, was named as the defendant and filed a suit .

The dealer operator told the court that ‘the obligation to pay compensation is the company’

In the case filed jointly by the three Berger color victims, the victims have filed a complaint against Friends Forever Trading Pvt. Ltd. operated by Dinesh Giri. Dayaram Karki purchased the colors from the dealer on 2081/1/19, Deepak Raj Giri on 2076/5/6 and Siddhanta Shrestha on 2078/12/15 saying that the colors of the Berger company have a warranty of 7 years and 10 years. However, the manufacturer of Berger Paint has stated that the paint manufacturer has not provided the warranty as written on the paint box and bucket, has completely ignored the issue, the paint has faded and the money purchased for the painting of the house has not been done as per the warranty given by the company.

Dayaram Karki, Siddhanta Shrestha and Deepak Raj Giri had filed a case at the court demanding compensation as per the amount paid to them as per the bill.

The court then sought a response from the defendant dealer, and the company that sold Berger’s paint, to to the case. In reply, Dinesh Giri said that he had purchased the paint from Friends Forever Trading Pvt. Ltd. The defendants have admitted that they had purchased the paint from the dealer, that they had talked to the company about it, and that the representatives of the company had come and investigated. However, after the company claimed that there was no defect in the color after the investigation, the victims said that the color was of low quality and demanded that the warranty should be given as written on the color box and bucket. Dealer operator Giri has claimed that such an act of Berger Jensen & Nicholson (Nepal) Pvt. Ltd. has also affected the operation of the shop due to the failure of my dealer company to provide quality goods to the customers. However, the dealer operator Giri had replied to the court claiming that there was no mistake in his .

The dealer operator claimed that the company had contracted with the dealer that there would be no warranty on the color . However, the dealer has filed a counter argument in the court saying that it is the responsibility of the company to provide quality colors to the consumers and also compensate them as they have no warranty with the dealer. Surprisingly, the Berger seller company did not even reply to the court.

The court looked at the video, photos and advertising evidence

After the case was filed by the Berger victim and the dealer operator replied, the court ordered on 9.09.2008 to bring back clearly visible evidence (colour photographs and videos) and electronic copies of the same, to bring back the buckets and boxes of colours consumed, to get 1-1 set of unsealed boxes/buckets of inferior claimed colours from the defendant seller, to submit the bill for the sale of paints, to bring back the photographs and videos of the advertisements prepared with warranty and to make a statement of the witness. Thereafter, the victims collected all the documents and evidence said by the court and submitted them to the court.

Ram Kumar Sonar, a witness of Deepak Raj Giri, testified in the court that Giri should be compensated as he saw that the house was painted with the color of Berger.

Then the appearance was fixed and arguments were held. Advocate Hari Bahadur Karki argued on behalf of the victims. The dealer owner himself appeared and presented his case. The evidence was presented in the court, the bills were presented, the buckets and boxes of paint were examined, and the samples of the other unsealed colors of the same batch were seen. The clauses of the law were overturned, there was a strong and thorough argument. The court then prepared a judgment clause on the matter. The court said that the agreement between the dealer and the company was contrary to the prevailing law. The court also explained that the claim that a minimum of 40 liters of paint should have been purchased for the warranty was not in accordance with the law.

Friends Forever Trading Pvt. Ltd., which is seeking to take the dealership, is a dealership. The court also clearly explained that the agreement was made that the goods were considered to be of good quality after handing over the goods to the second party, that the second party could not claim that it was of inferior quality and that there would be no warranty of any kind, which would be contrary to the provisions of Section 551 of the Civil Code, 2074 and Section 6(2)(g), Section 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2075.

Further, the court held that the dealer could not be exempted on the basis of showing it to the company. The court held the dealer also guilty as per the legal provision of Section 11 (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2018 that “if there is any guarantee or warranty on the goods, such provision shall be complied with”, the seller and the defendant did not comply with the provisions relating to the warranty of the color by coordinating with the consumer plaintiffs.

and finally the court said, ‘Pay damages’

As per Section 7(1)(f) and Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2018, the defendants Berger Jensen & Nicholson (Nepal) Pvt. Ltd. and the other vendor, the defendant Friends Forever Trading Pvt. Ltd., was awarded Rs. 12,14,500 and the other vendor, the defendant Friends Forever Trading Pvt. Ltd. Dinesh Giri, the proprietor of the plaintiffs, paid Rs. 1,68,900 to the defendants. On the basis of the bill purchased by the plaintiffs in respect of the paint applied to the exterior of the house, the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,46,100/-. Six lakh thirty-four thousand eight hundred rupees and Dayaram Karki paid Rs. Two lakh ninety-seven thousand five hundred rupees on the basis of the liability payable by the defendants.

Thus, the court ruled in favor of the victim that Berger’s color was poor, that the warranty did not work, and that the company’s contract with the dealer was not in accordance with the law.

Lessons that consumers should also learn after the verdict

After the decision to compensate the consumer after the color of Berger was proved to be inferior, now the consumer should also be careful. When painting the house of your dreams, you have to decide not on false and misleading advertisements, but on the experience of others in the market. If you have also applied Berger’s color, then at least do not throw away the boxes and buckets of those colors. If tomorrow the color is removed. Another thing is that it has been proved once again that justice is not dead in the country. If Berger has also opened your house, then you can also go to court.

There are many other types of Berger’s rhetoric

This is not the first time that the color has faded in a few months so that it can last for 7 to 10 years. More such incidents are seen in different parts of the country, including Damak. Many cases have reached the court. At various places, it seems that the victims have even held press conferences against Berger. In this way, before using Berger’s color, one has to think not once, not twice, but 10 times.

Sellers Insulted Company Contact

After the news came out that Berger’s color was found to be of poor quality and the court has also proved it and paid compensation, the sellers of Berger’s color are now terrified. On the one hand, the truth will be exposed, on the other hand, the customer’s complaint and the fear that the day will come to pay compensation. That is why some dealers even challenged us to show the court’s verdict. We have shown the verdict, now the rest will probably be shown to the dealers. Here is the full text of the judgment:

Upabhokta Adalat Faisala (Berger)

(Video)

https://www. youtube. com/watch? v=qpq-iwRk6cs