DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.541/2010
Sh. Manoj Panwar (Yogi Vishvketu)
Anand Prakash Yoga Ashram
PO Tapovan, Rishikesh
Tehri Garwal, Uttrakhand-249192 ….Complainant
Versus
Abhishek Kumar Mehan
A-122, Neeti Bagh,
New Delhi-110049 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 12.08.10 Date of Order : 03.07.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
According to the complainant, vide an oral agreement with the OP the complainant and his wife took the services of the OP for taking photographs at various locations during few years with the idea that the complainant was going for a photo book on yoga. The complainant clearly mentioned to the OP that the complainant and his wife wanted to have rights to the photos and if they could find a publisher for the photo book then they would be able to use the photos for the postcards or posters etc. The complainant paid Rs.95,000/- to the OP for the services rendered by the OP. However, the OP did not give the high resolution edited photographs to the complainant on the ground that he was the copyright owner of the photographs and the complainant could not use the photographs for any photo book without his express written permission. Nothing favourable to the complainant came out despite emails received from the OP. According to the complainant, as per the Copyright Act the author of the work is to be the first owner of the copyright but the OP cannot be the first owner since the OP was clicking at the instance of the complainant. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for directing the OP to deliver the photographs in original taken by him for the photo book on the instruction of the complainant, not to use the same for the photo book without his prior written approval and to pay Rs.2 lacs for mental agony and harassment etc. and Rs.31,000/- towards cost of litigation.
OP has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.05.12 passed by our predecessors.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in exparte evidence and also written arguments.
None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant. None also appeared on his behalf despite service of notice of pairavi vide dispatch No.752 dated 18.04.17 vide track report Mark A. Therefore, we proceed to decide the matter on merits.
The complaint raises an important question of fact and law viz. whether the copyright of the alleged photographs vested in the OP or it was the complainant who had to become the copyright owner of these photographs. According to the complainant, there was an oral agreement between him and the OP. Therefore, in our considered opinion, this fact cannot be decided without gong into minute details of the matter. Therefore, we hold that this fact cannot be decided in the summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.
The complainant has filed the photocopy of only one document. The same is a copy of deposit slip dated 15.12.09 whereby an amount of Rs.40,000/- has been shown to have been deposited in the bank account of one Mr. Abhishek Kumar. We mark the same as Mark A for the purposes of identification. According to the complainant, a copy of payment proof is Annexure CW/1 (Colly) as stated in the complaint and Ex. CW/1 according to the affidavit filed in evidence. The receipt Mark A is for an amount of Rs.40,000/- and not for Rs.95,000/-. Therefore, even otherwise the complainant has failed to prove his case to our satisfaction. Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 03.07.17.
