SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986  for an order directing  the OPs to pay sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to the complainant towards the  compensation for the loss and damages caused to the complainant by the OPs on account of the non supply of 2 Video DVDS, 2 DVD videos in H.D format in pen drives covering the function and  connected events of the marriage ceremony of Rohith.K.K and Soli Madhav solemnised on 20/8/2017 from the Kuthuparamba Co-op. rural Bank Auditorium  for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  on  the  part of OP’s.

The brief  of the complaint :                                                                                                                                

    The  complainant  submits that the marriage between the Rohith.K.K and Soli Madhav was solemnised on 20/8/2017 from the Kuthuparamba Co-op. Rural Bank Auditorium Kuthuparamba.  In connection with the marriage of Rohith.K.K and Soli Madhav, the OPs agreed to do all the  photography works in connection with their marriage and allied functions.  The OPs have also agreed and promised to give  2 Video, 2 DVD videos in H.D format in pen drives and 2 albums to  cover both sides, ie, brides and bride grooms side and the OPs collected a sum of Rs.1,48,800/- from the complainant’s side.  But the OPs not to  supply the same within one month.  Then the  complainant waiting for the 2 Video DVD’s, 2 DVD videos in H.D format in pen drives instead of supplying the same the 3^rd OP send a registered lawyer notice to complainant’s daughter alleging some defamatory statements  in to the web page of 3^rd OP.  Then on 1/8/2018 she send a reply to deny all allegations and averments in the notice.  Thereafter on 17/11/2017 the complainant received only one wedding album and mini album through the courier.  Then on 15/8/2018 the 1^st OP contacted Mr.Vasu and Mr.Krishnan to grand 1 more  months time to recover the photos and videos taken in to the  marriage.  But the Ops are not handover the items as agreed by them.  At last the complainant filed a complaint before Kuthuparamba  and Palloor police station.  Then the Ops  appeared before the police and expressed their inability to hand over the 2 video DVDs and 2 DVD videos in HD format in pen drive due to the non-recovery of photos and videos which were lost due to the crashing of OP's hard disk. The act of OPs the complainants caused much mental agony  and financial loss . Then the complainant send a lawyer notice to  OPs dtd 31/7/2018.The Ops received the notice neither send a reply nor paid the amount.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

         After  receiving the notice OPs 1&2  appeared before the commission and filed their written version and they denied all material allegations as made out in the complaint.  The Ops 1&2 admitted the marriage  date and entrusted the work of photography and collection fee of Rs.1,48,800/- also.  These Ops stated that the videography was not taken by the  Ops.  The 3^rd OP have got agreement with one Rohith.K.K and even if there is any grievances only the Rohith.K.K can lodge  a complaint.  This agreement was made  and entered into contract by payment of Rs.15,000/- towards advance booking amount and Rs.90,000/- on 19^th August 2017 and also the balance amount is Rs.44,800/- made on 12^th November 2017.  After the marriage an outdoor shooting there were  e-mail conversation between Rohith K.K and 3^rd OP.  All the articles received by Soli Madhav on 17/11/2017.  So the unreasonable delay stated in the complaint is baseless.  Up to the month of June 2018 the complainant have no complaint about the non sending about the DVD’s and 2 DVD’s in HD  in pen drive.  Moreover on 13/6/2018 the 3^rd OP issued a lawyer notice against Soli Madhav stating that the allegations made by them in google review and asked to pay Rs.25 lakhs as compensation to  3^rd OP.  In order to receive the notice they filed a  false complaint against the Ops before the Kuthuparamba  police.  The Ops also contended that the jurisdiction of this complaint is not maintainable before this commission.  So there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of  Ops 1&2.  Hence  the complaint  is liable to be  dismissed.

    3^rd OP received the notice and not appeared before the commission and no version filed .  Hence 3^rd OP is set exparte.

      On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost.

     The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 4 and Exts. A1 to A16 were marked. On   OP’s side  except the version  no oral or documentary evidence.  After that learned counsel for complainant filed argument note.

Issue No.1: 

         The  Complainant No.2(power of attorney older of l complainant Nos 1&3) adduced evidence before the commission by submitting  his chief affidavit in lieu of  his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the  contentions in the version.  He  was cross examined as PW1  by  OPs 1&2. According to the complainant Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on his part to substantiate his case.  Exts.A15&A16 marked  through  PW4. Ext.A1  is the lawyer notice send by Adv.Anilkumar  issued under the instruction of 3^rd OP to complainant dtd.13/6/2018.  Ext.A2 is the  reply notice send by Adv.O.G.Premarajan to Adv. Anilkumar dtd.31/7/2018.  Ext.A3 is the postal receipt and Ext.A4 is the acknowledgment card.  Ext.A5 &A6 are the copy of lawyer notice send by Adv.O,G.Premarajan to OPs 1&2 dtd.31/7/2018.  Exts.A7&A8 are the postal receipts. Exts. Ext.A9&A10  are  acknowledgment card.  Ext.A11 is the complaint filed by complainant to Palloor SHO.  Ext.A12 is the receipt issued by Palloor SHO, Ext.A13 is the  courier service receipt and Ext.A14 is the  power of attorney.  On complainant’s side PWs2 to 4 were also examined.  PW2 is one Mr. Midhun K.K who is the cousin brother of 3^rd complainant.  He deposed that “  കല്ല്യാണം എനിക്ക് attend ചെയ്യാൻ പറ്റിയില്ല.5 മാസ്സമായിട്ടും കല്ല്യാണ video കിട്ടിയില്ല എന്ന് ഞാൻ അറിയുന്നത്. ഞാൻ OP.NO.2 വിനെ ജനുവരി 2018ൽ ബന്ധപ്പെട്ടു.  ഈ videos ഉം photos ഉം computer ന്ർറെ internal storage- ൽ ആണ് store ചെയ്യുന്നത് എന്നും secondary back up വച്ചിട്ടില്ല എന്നും OP.NO.2 പറഞ്ഞു.  കൂടാതെ ഈ കല്ലാണത്തിന്ർറെ video, photos, computer ന്ർറെ soft ware operative system clash  ആയതുകൊണ്ട് internal hardware ന്ർറെ  data loss ആയതുകൊണ്ടും video, photos  നഷ്ട്ടപ്പെട്ടു എന്നു പറഞ്ഞു.” In the evidence of PW3 is one Mr.Vasu Kunnubron,who deposed that“2018 January യിൽ video എടുത്ത Viji Paul എന്ന ആളും(OP.NO.2) അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്ർറെ ഭാര്യാപിതാവ് Prasannan(OP.1) എന്ന ആളും എന്നെയും മാങ്ങാട്ടിടം പഞ്ചായത്ത് Vice president കൃഷ്ണനെയുംബന്ധപ്പെട്ടിരുന്നു.  കല്ലാണത്തിന്ർറെ video  കൊടുക്കാൻ  സാധിച്ചില്ല. ഞങ്ങളോട് ആയതിന്  ഒരു മാസ്സത്തെ സാവകാശം അവർ ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടു. ഞങ്ങൾ സി.പി.മാധവനെ വിളിച്ചുവരുത്തി സംസാരിച്ചു. പക്ഷേ ഒരു മാസം കഴിഞ്ഞും കിട്ടിയില്ല. Kuthuparamba police station ൽ ഒരു പരാതി മാധവൻ കൊടുത്തിരുന്നു. വരന്ർറെയും വധുവിന്ർറെയും വീട്ടിൽ നിന്ന് video പിടിച്ചിരുന്നു. Video pen drive ൽ ആക്കി കൊടുക്കാമെന്നാണ് പറഞ്ഞത്. വിവാഹത്തിന്ർറെ ചടങ്ങുകളൊന്നും അവർക്ക് video ലഭിക്കാത്തതിനാൽ കാണാൻ സാധിച്ചില്ല. PW4 is one Mr. Sivadas, who is the manager of Professional courier, Kuthuparamba Branch.എന്നെ ഇപ്പോൾ കാണിച്ചത് service guide ആണ്,Marked as Ext.A15. Ext.A15 ൽ 2-ാംമതായി കാണിച്ച CD and video cassettes എന്ന headingൽ കൊടുത്ത കാര്യത്തിൽ accepted only declaiming contents of CD/video and their value mentioned  on invoice എന്നു പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്. Ext.A13-അത്തരത്തിൽ സാധനം receive ചെയ്തതായി കാണുന്നില്ല? ഇല്ല. 17/11/17 ൽ മാധവന് കൈമാറിയ courier ൽ (1703410 No. invoice പ്രകാരമുള്ള കൊറിയറിൽ ) CD യോ video cassettes ഓ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല? ഇല്ല. ആൽബം മാത്രമാണ് കൊടുത്തത്. എന്നെ ഇപ്പോൾ കാണിച്ചത് ഞങ്ങൾ നൽകിയDelivery sheet ആണ്. Marked as Ext.A16.  So it is clear that the OPs are not to give 2 videos DVDs, 2 DVD videos in HD format in pen drives to the complainant.  PWs1 to 4 are clearly stated that only the  albums given to the  complainant and video and DVD videos in HD format in pen drives are not taken by the OPs.  The admitted fact of OP’s that they received Rs.1,48,800/- from the complainant.  But videos are not supplied and OPs are not done as per agreement .  On OP’s side no documents or evidence to prove their defense.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of   OPs. So we are of the  considered view that the OPs 1 to 3  are jointly and severally liable to pay the loss caused to the complainant.   Hence the  issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue No.2&3:

   As discussed above the  3^rd complainant and Soli Madhav’s marriage was solemnised on 20/8/2017 and the OPs  are agreed to do all the photography and videography.  They promised to give 2 video DVDs, 2 DVD videos in HD format in pen drive also.  As per the agreement the OPs collected a sum of Rs.1,48,800/- from the complainant.  The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 shows that the OPs are failed to do . So we hold that the OPs are directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. At this stage ie, after 7 years there is no meaning to order to deliver the videos, because  impossible to deliver videos at this belated time. So the act of OPs , the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of   OPs. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,48,800/- from the OPs. Hence the OPs 1 to 3  are jointly and severally liable to refund  Rs.1,48,800/- to the complainant  along with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. Thus the issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered. 

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part  directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3   are jointly and severally liable to refund  Rs.1,48,800/- to the complainant  along with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost within  30 days of  receipt  of this order. In default the amount of Rs.148,800/- carries 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.  Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1- lawyer notice

A2 - reply notice  dtd.31/7/2018. 

A3- postal receipt

A4- acknowledgment card.

A5 &A6-copy of lawyer notice

A7&A8- postal receipts

A9&A10- acknowledgment card.

A11- complaint filed by complainant to Palloor SHO.

A12 -receipt issued by Palloor SHO,(Mahe)

A13-  courier service receipt

A14 -  power of attorney

A15-Service guide

A16-Delivery run sheet

PW1-C.P.Madhavan- 2^nd  complainant

PW2-Mithun.K.K- witness of complainant

PW3-Kunnabran Vasu- do-

PW4- Sivadas.V.K-         do-

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR