DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2024
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 17/12/2021
CC/228/2021
Sarath Das,
S/o. M. N. Das,
‘Dharsana’, Varod (PO), Kottayi,
Palakkad – 678 572. - Complainant
(By Adv.M/s. M.P.Ravi & M.J. Vince)
Vs
Ajay Krishna,
“Amaze Weddings”,
Parayil Angadi, Kottayi (PO),
Palakkad – 678 572. - Opposite party
(O.P. by Adv. C. Madhavankutty)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Complainant availed the services of the OP photographer for executing the photography works of the complainant’s wedding which took place during September 2020. Even after the passage of over one year, photographs were not handed over to the complainant. It is aggrieved by this delay that the complainant has filed this complaint seeking handing over of photographs and for compensation and other incidental expenses.
- OP filed version admitting engagement by complainant. He stated that owing to the Covid protocol, only 40 persons were allowed inside the mandapam. But the wedding was conducted with over 100 persons. The opposite party had to take more than double the expected photographs. Since the number of photographs increased, the cost expended also increased considerably to a tune of Rs.25,000/- but the complainant failed to settle this amount. It was in this circumstance that the opposite party refused to hand over photographs.
- The following issues were framed for consideration:
- Whether the OP was forced to do extensive coverage of the function spending additional time and effort against their agreement terms?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
- Any other reliefs?
4. (i) Documentary evidence of the complainant comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A4.
Marking of Exts. A1 & A4 were objected to on the ground that there is a chance of concoction.
Ext.A1 is the screen shot of G-Pay of Rs.10,000/- effected to the OP. Even though the OP had stated that there is a chance that this Exhibit may be concocted, they had not discharged the burden of proof cast on them to prove their allegation that Ext.A1 is concocted. Further OP has admitted that he had received Rs.10,000/- as advance. Hence objection with regard to Ext.A1 is unsustainable.
Ext.A4 is a series of call history details along with WhatsApp chats. This document has 16 pages. With regard to this document also the objection is that this document may be concocted. But during the stage of evidence the OP has not adduced any evidence nor even raised a question regarding the authenticity of Ext.A4. Thus, O.P. has failed in proving their case that Ext.A4 also may be concocted. Therefore Exts. A1 and A4 is admissible in evidence.
(ii) Complainant was examined as PW1.
(iii) O.P. filed proof affidavit but did not mark any documents. OP was examined as DW1.
Issue No.1
5. Undisputedly, the OP has not handed over the photographs to the complainant even after a delay of over one year. OP defended his conduct stating that the wedding was expected to be conducted with less than 40 persons but was conducted with over 100 persons, thereby increasing the expected expenditure. Complainant was not amenable to paying the additional expenses incurred. It was this refusal by the complainant in paying the additional expenses incurred that resulted in the failure to handover the photographs.
6. In order to substantiate their pleadings, complainant marked Exts.A1 to A4. Complainant was examined as PW1. OP was examined as DW1. One of the difficulties in dealing with the case is that there is no written agreement between the parties. What the parties had in mind at the time of coming to an agreement can be understood only by way referring to their depositions and Ext.A4. Upon going through the depositions, we do not see any materials that would be helpful for a judicial appreciation of a dispute.
7. But Ext.A4 is a WhatsApp chat record spread over a period of 30/8/2020 to 13/03/2021. In view of absence to any documentary evidence from the OP or any evidence disproving the contents of Ext. A4 or proving that Ext.A4 is a forged and concocted document, we are relying on the contents of Ext.A4 in its As-Is-What-Is condition. It would also be appropriate to keep in mind that the O.P. could have produced the chats, since this chat was also in the O.P.’s phone.
8. Wedding was on 14/9/2020. Chat between complainant and OP in Ext. A4 starts on 30/8/2020. There is no discussion whatsoever in Ext.A4 regarding the number of persons who would attend the wedding. Even in discussions starting from 14/9/2020 till 13/3/2021, there is no demand whatsoever made by the OP for any additional amounts based on the increase in the number of participants in the wedding. The only demands are those made by the complainant for photographs and the assurances made by the OP that the same would be uploaded within a couple of days.
9. Thus, on an appreciation of the available evidence, we can only come to a conclusion that the opposite party had at no point of time informed the complainant that he is in need of additional amounts. Therefore, the pleadings in the version is nothing but an attempt at misleading and misguiding this Commission.
10. Accordingly, we hold that there was no coverage over and above what was agreed by the complainant and OP.
Issue No. 2
11. Banking on the discussions above, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.
Issue No. 3
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the demand for over Rs.1 lakh has compensation is excessive. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant the reliefs, as sought for.
Issue No. 4
13. In the result, based on the findings as noted supra, we hold as below:
1. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not handing over the photographs.
2. The O.P. is directed to hand-over the entire photographs to the complainant.
3. Complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and a cost of Rs.10,000/- .
4. From out of the said compensation, an amount of Rs.9,000/- may be set off as the balance amount payable by the complainant to the opposite party.
5. The above directives shall be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, failing which the O.P. shall pay an amount of Rs.250/ per month or part thereof as solatium from the date of this Order till the date of compliance of the directives herein.
14. Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of May, 2024.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Copy of screenshot
Ext.A2 - Original pen drive
Ext.A3 - Original DD for Rs.9,000/-
Ext.A4 - Copy of phone history details and whatsapp chat.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 – Sarath Das (Complainant)
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 – Ajaykrishna (OP)
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
