Haryana

Kaithal

CC/67/2023

Harpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baljinder Singh sole proprietor pf Punjab HD Studio - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Parmpreet Singh

28 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 67 of 2023.

                                                               Date of institution:   17.03.2023.

                                                               Date of decision:      28.11.2023.

 

Harpal Singh s/o Shri Paramjeet Singh, r/o village Chandlana, Tehsil Dhand, District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                   Versus

 

Baljinder Singh sole Proprietor of Punjab HD Studio s/o late Shri Mota Singh, shop situated at Cheeka, resident of village Rampur Parta, PO Badshahpur, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.

...Opposite Party

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

                  

Present:       Shri Parampreet Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Opposite Party ex-parte.

                  

ORDER  - NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OP.

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant met the OP in the month of October 2020 at Cheeka and hired his service for providing his services of photography including with videography in the marriage function of his brother namely Harjinder Singh which was fixed on 11.11.2020. The conditions were set between him and OP in the shape of oral contract, according to that, OP will provide his services of photography and videography in total Rs.60,000/- for whole function for three days and OP agreed to the oral contract. There was a program of Vakhala on 10.11.2020, where OP had to provide videography and one photographer. On 11.11.2020, OP agreed to provide his service with one videographer, one photographer and one drone camera pilot and on 12.11.2020, on the day of reception party, OP agreed to cover the function with two camera man, two videographer and among these two men, one of both photographer and videographer would cover the stage function and others two would cover all other function. Complainant gave Rs.25,000/- in advance for the function and rest payment was decided to be given at the day of marriage function and he paid the balance payment of Rs.35,000/- to OP on the day of marriage on 11.11.2020, but on 12.11.2020,  OP did not come with two camera man and only single camera man for photography came and OP violated the terms and conditions of oral contract. Thereafter he made various calls to OP to handover the photo and videos, but all in vain and finally in the month of May 2022, OP handed over pen drive and album of marriage to his father and when they saw the album which was good and when they watched the marriage video, they shocked as there was approximately 60% incomplete video, where there is no real placement of shots of videos. OP placed simple photos with mixing of the songs instead of video, which were shooted at the time of ceremonies of marriage. Thereafter, he called OP and asked to provide complete and full original video and edited original video, then OP had asked that all the data of video from camera and all the date relating to video destroyed, as a consequence, OP attached the photos instead of original shooted videos. It was duty of OP to provide complete services in lieu of payment, given to him, but he failed to do so. The above act and conduct of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OP failed to appear before this Commission on the date fixed i.e. 04.05.2023, despite receipt of notice of this Commission, as such, OP was proceeded, against ex-parte, on that date, by this Commission.

4.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant hired service of OP for providing his services of photography and videography, in the marriage function of his brother namely Harjinder Singh, which was fixed on 11.11.2020. The conditions were set between the complainant and OP in the shape of oral contract, according to that, OP will provide his services of photography and videography in total Rs.60,000/- for whole function for three days and OP agreed to the oral                                      contract. There was a program of Vakhala on 10.11.2020, where OP had to provide videography and one photographer. On 11.11.2020, OP agreed to provide his service with one videographer, one photographer and one drone cameral pilot and on 12.11.2020, on the day of reception party, OP agreed to cover the function with two camera man, two videographer and among these two men, one of both photographer and videographer would cover the stage function and others two would cover all other function. Complainant gave Rs.25,000/- in advance for the function and rest payment was decided to be given at the day of marriage function and the complainant paid the balance payment of Rs.35,000/- to OP, on the day of marriage on 11.11.2020, but on 12.11.2020,  OP did not come with two camera man and only single camera man for photography came and OP violated the terms and conditions of oral contract. Thereafter, the complainant made various calls to OP to handover the photo and videos, but all in vain and finally in the month of May 2022, OP handed over pen drive and album of marriage to his father and when they saw the album which was good and when they watched the marriage video, they shocked as there was approximately 60% of data in complete video, where there is no real placement of shots of videos. OP placed simple photos with mixing of the songs instead of video, which were shooted at the time of ceremonies of marriage. Thereafter, the complainant called OP and asked to provide complete and full original video and edited original video, then OP had asked that all the data of video from camera and all the date relating to video destroyed, as a consequence, OP attached the photos instead of original shooted videos. It was duty of OP to provide complete services in lieu of payment, given to him, but he failed to do so. The above act and conduct of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service.

7.                After hearing learned counsel for the complainant, we found that grievance of the complainant is that he hired the service of OP, for providing photography and videography, for three days function of marriage of his brother Harjinder Singh from 10.11.2020 to 12.11.2020, for a total sum of Rs.60,000/-, but after the marriage, when they played the marriage video, they shocked as there was approximately 60% incomplete video, where there is no real placement of shots of videos, rather OP placed simple photos with mixing of the songs instead of video, which were shooted at the time of ceremonies of marriage, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OP.

8.                In his evidence, complainant produced video of said marriage, in a pen drive, on the case file, as Annexure C-3, which was played in the open Commission, and after watching same, it is found that in most of the videos, the photo is stilled and only songs are playing in the background. The OP placed simple photos with mixing of the songs instead of video of the ceremonies of marriage and other functions. There was no real placement of shots of videos.

9.                It is pertinent to mention here that when we hire the services of a photographer for video/photo shooting of a marriage/function, then it is necessary/mandatory for that photographer to cover/shoot all the marriage/functions, by clicking the photos as well as making the videos, and then make it presentable, by mixing the songs, in the background, but in the case in hand, the OP had not done so, rather he put the pictures with the background songs just to cover the lacuna in his work. Marriage is a big moment in any person's life, which he remembers for his entire life and that’s why we hire photographers, so that they can capture every important moment of the wedding & its related functions on camera, so that we can relive those beautiful moments, by watching that video/photos, whenever we want throughout our life. But in this case, by not shooting the video of complainant/functions, the OP/photographer has deprived complainant’s brother namely Harjinder Singh, of such a valuable thing, for which even if he spends lakhs of rupees, that moment cannot come back in his life again and due to that, said Harjinder Singh will not be able to enjoy his wedding video for the rest of his life, which generally happens only once in everyone's life. The above act and conduct of OP, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on his part. Moreover, in the case in hand, OP was proceeded against ex-parte, due to non-appearance, before this Commission, despite receipt from this Commission, as such, evidence adduced by the complainant, remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Hence, case of complainant also ex-parte proved. For his gross deficiency in service, the OP, not only liable to refund Rs.60,000/-, received from the complainant for covering the said marriage/functions, but also liable to pay the compensation amount with litigation expenses, to the complainant.

10.              Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.60,000/-, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of present complaint, till its realization, within 45 days, from today. OP is further directed to pay Rs.40,000/-, on account of physical harassment and mental agony, suffered by the complainant as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges, to the complainant.

11.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:28.11.2023.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.