D.O.F. 02.01.2009 D.O.O. 07.03.2011 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri. K. Gopalan : President Smt. K.P. Preethakumari : Member Smt. M.D. Jessy : Member Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011. C.C.No.04/2009 C.K. Suresh @ Suresh Babu S/o. Sankaran Nambiar, : Complainant ‘Parvathi Sadan’, L.I.C. Agent, Kuthuparamba Amsom, Ambilad Desom, P.O. Niramalagiri, Thalasseri Taluk (Rep. by Adv. Ranjith Kumar T.C.) 1. Aneesh, S/o. Achuthan, Videographer, Millennium Digital Creations, Nirmalagiri P.O., Kuthuparamba. 2. Sachin, Videographer, : Opposite Parties Millennium Digital Creations, Nirmalagiri P.O., Kuthuparamba. 3. Shanith, S/o. Dasan, Videographer, Millennium Digital Creations, Nirmalagiri P.O., Kuthuparamba. (Rep. by Adv. N. Premarajan) O R D E R Sri. K. Gopalan, President. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of ` 50,000 as compensation and also to return the bill amount ` 3,700 paid to the 1st opposite party and to give the entire recording without deleting any part of the swarnaprasnam. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as follows. Complainant’s brother Santhosh was stabbed to death. Subsequently house of the Balan Nambiar was attacked alleging his son was involved in the murder of Santhosh. Balan Nambiar was complainant’s father’s brother. During the course of attack Balan Nambiar was also died. Police registered two cases. In the light of the above said incident the members of the family decided to conduct a swarnaprasnam and made arrangements for the same. Mr. Soman Panikker was entrusted to conduct the swarnaprasnam and the date was fixed on 25th and 26th of June, 2007. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for recording the entire proceedings of swarnaprasnam. Opposite party No.1 readily agreed. 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are the persons in charge of videography. It was agreed that the whole proceedings of swarnaprasnam should be recorded. On 25th and 26th they came and recorded the same and an amount of 3,700 was paid to 1st opposite party. During the course of swarnaprasnam Mr. Soma Panicker asked several questions regarding the death of Santhosh and also regarding the death of Sri. Balan Nambiar and complainant explained all the incidents within his knowledge and also answered all the questions. The family members of deceased Balan Nambiar were also present and they narrated the true facts relating to the death of Balan Nambiar and also answered all the questions. The daughters of Sri. Balan Nambiar who were present at the time when the house of Balan Nambiar was attacked answered all the questions and narrated the incident relating to the death of Balan Nambiar. In Balan Nambiar’s murder case 1st accused is Govindan Nambiar, the close relative of the complainant and Balan Nambiar. Govindan Nambiar was in no way connected to the murder of Balan Nambiar. Sri. Soma Panicker observed by looking into the rasi that : “\nc-]-cm-[n-Isf tIkn IpSp-¡n-bm hcpT Xe-apd BbXv A\p-`-hn-¡p-T.” The daughter of Sri. Balan Nambiar, Smt. Vineetha who is also a main witness in the case replied that “t]meokv BWv _me³ \¼-ymsc {]Xn B¡n-b-Xv, Rm³ I-Xmbn ]d-ªn-«n-Ã, Rm³ Kp-IÄ Ft¶ ]d-ªn-«p-f-fq.” Entire proceedings were recorded by the opposite party and they prepared the CD. But the CD was delivered by deleting the versions narrated by the daughter of Balan Nambiar and others regarding the death of Balan Nambiar. It was done with ulterior motive. The opposite parties cheated the complainant and also done mischief and thereby caused breach of contract. The act of opposite party is a deficiency in service. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version jointly denying the main allegations of complainant. The brief facts of the version of opposite parties are as follows : The incident mentioned above does not belonged to opposite parties. First opposite party used to get orders with its help recently. The subject matter of the complaint does not include in the definition of dispute. The allegation of omission of portions which had not been described in the function cannot be considered exclusion of those portions in display. It is not correct to say that the opposite parties are videographers of the above institution. It is not agreed to record the whole proceedings of swarnaprasnam. It was conducted 2 days from morning to evening at about 12 hours a day. Recording of the procedure full time will atleast cost ` 10,000. The amount shown in the complaint ` 3,700 itself will speak that complainant was not really intended to record the entire proceedings by video coverage. Complainant himself arranged the mike and light. He himself stated that opposite party had brought only one camera and light. According to him 2 mikes were arranged and they were installed on the stage in front of the 2 Devanjar. Camera was also focused only at the Devajnar on this stage and there was no arrangement to cover the audience. By using one camera fixed facing the stage and mikes installed for the purpose of Devajnar on the stage nothing could be shooted or recorded among the audience. If the recording of the audience was really intended atleast 2 sets of camera and mikes with necessary staffs should have been arranged by the complainant. Under the available facilities provided there is no logic in the averment that the entire proceeding had not been covered and recorded. The CD was taken directly from the DVC and delivered without any interference. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint at the cost of this opposite parties. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. (1) Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint? (3) Relief and cost. Evidence consists of PW1, PW2, DW1, DW2 and Ext.A1 to A3. Issues 1 to 3 : This is a case in which complainant made arrangements to cover and record the proceedings of swarnaprasnam conducted by the family members of the complainant. The main allegation of the complainant is that opposite parties purposefully deleted certain portions recorded during the swarnaprasnam. On the display of CD complainant found that the versions narrated by the daughter of Sri. Balan Nambiar and all others were missing since it was deleted by opposite party. According to complainant it is deliberate intentional act with a view to suppress the roll narrated by the daughter of Sri. Balan Nambiar regarding the death of Sri. Balan Nambiar. Opposite parties on the other hand contended that there was no agreement for the coverage and recording the whole proceedings of swarnaprasnam. It is two days program from morning to evening. The entire recording of procedures will at least cost ` 10,000. The total remuneration complainant paid was only ` 3,700 that itself shows that complainant never intended to cover and record the entire program. The evidence on record reveals that there was a swarnaprasnam conducted in the tharavadu of the complainant. Arrangements also made to videograph the proceedings. Admittedly complainant paid ` 3,700 for this purpose to opposite party. The specific contention of the opposite party is that the program of swarnaprasnam is a long proceedings of two days from morning to evening which will at least cost ` 10,000. Moreover to cover and record the entire programme it is required atleast 2 sets of camera and mikes with sufficient staffs. Complainant never denied this aspect or adduce evidence to show that the amount paid is sufficient for 2 days whole program. So also complainant has no case that there are more than one sets of camera and mikes and enough staffs arranged for recording the entire programme of swarnaprasnam. Complainant is also no case that one set of camera and mikes is sufficient to cover the entire programme. Opposite party has contended that complainant has arranged only one set of camera and mike. Complainant has neither denied it nor adduced any evidence so as to prove sufficient arrangements have been made for the purpose of coverage of whole program of swarnaprasnam. The main point of allegation of complainant is that the observation of Soma Panicker by looking into rasi “\nc-]-cm-[n-Isf tIkn IpSp-¡n-bm hcpT Xe-apd BbXv A\p-`-hn-¡p-T.” and answer of Vineetha, the daughter of Balan Nambiar that “t]meokv BWv _me³ \¼-ymsc {]Xn B¡n-b-Xv, Rm³ I-Xmbn ]d-ªn-«n-Ã, Rm³ Kp-IÄ Ft¶ ]d-ªn-«p-f-fq.” were recorded but when the CD was played it was seen that the version narrated by Vineetha, DW2 found deleted from the CD by opposite parties. DW2, Vineetha was examined and deposd that “kzÀW{]iv\T \S-¡p¶ ka-b¯v Hcp Iym-ad Ahsc focus sNbvXn-cp-¶p. B ka-b¯v X{´n-amÀ kT-km-cn-¡p-t¼mÄ mike Dm-bn-cp-¶p. kZ-Ên Rm³ ]nd-In Bbn-cp-¶p. k-zÀW-{]-iv\-¯n Rm³ ]s¦-Sp-¯n-cp-¶n-Ã. AÑsâ sIme-]m-X-Is¯¸än ]cm-aÀiT Dm-bn-cp-¶n-Ã. sIme-]m-X-I-¯nse {]Xn-I-sf-¸-än-bpT ]cm-aÀiT Dm-bn-cp-¶n-Ã. \nc-]-cm-[n-Isf tIkn IpSp-¡n-bm hcpT Xe-apd BbXv A\p-`-hn-¡pT F¶p ]Wn-¡À ]dªn«p-m-bn-cp-¶n-Ã. t]meokv BWv tKmhn-µ³ \¼-ymsc {]Xn-bm-¡n-bXv, Rm³ I-Xmbn ]dªn«n-Ã, Rm³ Kp-Isf Ft¶ ]d-ªn-«p-ffq F¶v ]d-ªn-«n-Ã.” In cross examination she is deposed that “sIme-]m-X-Is¯ Ipdn-¨pT Rm³ AhnsS Df-f-t¸mÄ kT-km-cT Dm-bn-cp-¶n-Ã.” When DW2 directly deposed that she had not stated as alleged by the complainant there is no scope to contend that those portions are deleted from the CD. There is no reason to discard the evidence of DW2. From the evidence of DW2 it is clear that the alleged portions had not been deposed by Vineetha during the program of swarnaprasnam. Hence there is no meaning in saying that those portions are deleted. Complainant miserably failed to establish that those portions were deposed by the concerned persons. In the light of the above discussion and the evidence on record we are not in a position to conclude that there is any substance in the allegation of the complainant. Thus issue No.1 to 3 found against complainant. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1(a) & (b). Cash bills. A2. Copy of lawyer notice dated 14.01.2008. A3. Reply letter dated 01.02.2008. Exhibits for the opposite party Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1. Complainant PW2. Rajanarayanan C.K. Witness examined for the opposite party DW1. C.K. Vineetha DW2. Sachin C. /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT | 
