Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
- Present complaint has been filed by Ms.Simren & Sh. Inderdeep Singh complainants under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant No.1 is an NRI and had come back to India to perform her marriage with complainant No.2 in the year 2015 which was held on 18.10.2015 and registered with the office of Registrar of Marriage at Amritsar on 23.10.2015. In order to make video film and photographs of the aforesaid marriage functions, complainants had hired the services of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties demanded Rs. 1,22,500/- from the complainant. Out of which the opposite parties had already received Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainants. The opposite parties alongwith their staff had recorded the video and taken the still photographs of all the marriage functions of the complainants. All the marriage functions of the complainants were completed on 20.10.2015. After the completion of the marriage functions, opposite parties called the complainants to check the photographs of the marriage. But the complainants were shocked to see the photographs as various photographs of the marriage were edited by the opposite parties for the purpose of introduction and names of the spouse, wherein various spelling mistakes were made by the opposite parties. Wrong name of the complainant No.1 was written at various places. There were various spelling mistakes in other English words. Even the spelling of SATNAM WAHEGURU (In Punjabi) were also wrong. As such the complainants asked the opposite parties to rectify the aforesaid spelling mistakes before its delivery to the complainant, but the opposite parties have not delivered the video film and photo album of the said marriage functions to the complainants till date. The complainants many times approached the opposite parties personally as well as through telephone calls, email and through other electronic media thereby requested the opposite parties to handover the video film and photo album of the said marriage functions to them, but the opposite parties did not adhere the genuine requests of the complainants. The video film and photo album of marriage functions are still lying with the opposite parties. The opposite parties have already received Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainants and by not delivering the video film and photo album amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainants have already reported the matter to the local police, but the police is not taking any action against the opposite parties . The complainants also served a legal notice dated 1.11.2016 upon the opposite parties , but till date no needful has been done. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
- Opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from November 2015 till realization ;
- Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was admitted that opposite parties alongwith their staff members had recorded the video and taken the still photographs of marriage functions of the complainant. It was also admitted that after completion of marriage functions, complainants were called by the opposite parties to check the photographs . It was denied that there were many spelling mistakes made by the complainants or that many words were wrongly spelt . It was denied that the opposite parties have not delivered the video film and photo album of the marriage functions to the complainants till date. It was also denied that the aforesaid record is still lying in the custody of the opposite parties . Rather the entire video data was handed over to the complainants in the form of a hard drive brought by the complainants to the office of the opposite parties in the month of November 2015 and thereafter the complainants were to send the selected photographs till the month of December 2015 or January 2016. But since the complainants failed to send the selected data to the opposite parties despite their repeated requests and reminders, as such the opposite parties of their own sent the data of photographs to the complainants after deleting the repeated photographs for further approval of the complainants. It was only in the month of June, 2016 when the complainants sent the selected data through pen drives but those pen drives were not having the selection according to the series of functions performed during the marriage and the entire photographs were mixed and it was not possible for the opposite parties to re-arrange those photographs into the series of functions, as such the opposite parties again requested the complainants to send the selected photographs according to the series of the functions of marriage and also requested to make the remaining payment of Rs. 20,000/-. But the complainants having malafide intentions reported the matter to the police . After enquiry, no wrongful act was found to be there on the part of the opposite parties and as such, the said complaint was closed by the policies authorities. It was submitted that there was only a single mistake in the spelling of “SATNAAM WAHEGURU” which was lateron corrected to be ‘SATNAM WAHEGURU”. It was denied that intentions of the opposite parties became malafide or that they ever blackmailed the complainants. The receipt of Rs. 1,00,000/- is not disputed but however still a sum of Rs. 20000/- is due from the complainants. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh. S.S.Mehndiratta,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13, affidavit of Smt.Sarabjit Kaur Ex.CW2/A, copy of Aadhar card Ex.CW2/B and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite parties did not lead any evidence and a statement to this effect has been made by Sh.Vishal Gupta,Advocate counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts narrated in the complaint and has submitted that in order to make video film and photographs of the aforesaid marriage functions, complainants hired the services of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties demanded Rs. 1,22,500/- from the complainant. Out of which the opposite parties had already received Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainants. The opposite parties alongwith their staff had recorded the video and taken the still photographs of all the marriage functions of the complainants. All the marriage functions of the complainants were completed on 20.10.2015. After the completion of the marriage functions, opposite parties called the complainants to check the photographs of the marriage. But the complainants were shocked to see the photographs as various photographs of the marriage were edited by the opposite parties for the purpose of introduction and names of the spouse, wherein various spelling mistakes were made by the opposite parties. Wrong name of the complainant No.1 was written at various places. There were various spelling mistakes in other English words. Even the spelling of SATNAM WAHEGURU (In Punjabi) were also wrong. As such the complainants asked the opposite parties to rectify the aforesaid spelling mistakes before its delivery to the complainant, but the opposite parties have not delivered the video film and photo album of the said marriage functions to the complainants till date. The complainants many times approached the opposite parties personally as well as through telephone calls, email and through other electronic media thereby requested the opposite parties to handover the video film and photo album of the said marriage functions to them, but the opposite parties did not adhere the genuine requests of the complainants. The video film and photo album of marriage functions are still lying with the opposite parties. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. On the other hand opposite parties have repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant and have admitted that opposite parties alongwith their staff members had recorded the video and taken the still photographs of marriage functions of the complainant. It was also admitted that after completion of marriage functions, complainants were called by the opposite parties to check the photographs . It was denied that there were many spelling mistakes made by the complainants or that many words were wrongly spelt . It was denied that the opposite parties have not delivered the video film and photo album of the marriage functions to the complainants till date. Rather the entire video data was handed over to the complainants in the form of a hard drive brought by the complainants to the office of the opposite parties in the month of November 2015 and thereafter the complainants were to send the selected photographs till the month of December 2015 or January 2016. But since the complainants failed to send the selected data to the opposite parties despite their repeated requests and reminders, as such the opposite parties of their own sent the data of photographs to the complainants after deleting the repeated photographs for further approval of the complainants. It was only in the month of June, 2016 when the complainants sent the selected data through pen drives but those pen drives were not having the selection according to the series of functions performed during the marriage and the entire photographs were mixed and it was not possible for the opposite parties to re-arrange those photographs into the series of functions, as such the opposite parties again requested the complainants to send the selected photographs according to the series of the functions of marriage and also requested to make the remaining payment of Rs. 20,000/-.
8. To prove his assertion, complainants have produced on record cover page of album which shows that the spelling of “SATNAM WAHEGURU” were wrong. In this regard complainants have many a times approached the opposite parties to deliver the video film and photo album and also sent e-mails Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 and these documents are corroborated by the complainants by duly sworn affidavit produced on record by complainant No.1. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties suffered a statement that he does not want to lead any evidence on behalf of the opposite parties No.1 & 2. In such a situation the documents adduced by the complainants in support of their contentions are sufficient to prove their case as gospel truth. But, however the opposite parties have not produced on record any evidence that entire video data was handed over to the complainants in the form of a hard drive brought by the complainants to the office of the opposite parties in the month of November 2015 and thereafter the complainants were to send the selected photographs till the month of December 2015 or January 2016. And in this way opposite parties have failed to deliver the video film and photo album by making correction in the spelling of “SATNAM WAHEGURU” . So in this way the religious sentiments of the complainants have been hurt and damaged. So the purpose of making video film and still photographs is defeated as the marriage was held on 18.10.2015 but till date the opposite parties have not supplied the video film and photo album to the complainants inspite of charging the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant.
9. In view of the above , this Forum is of the considered view that there is certainly a deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and in this way the opposite parties are definitely liable to refund the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid by the complainants for the deficient services rendered by the opposite parties. But, however the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- claimed by the complainants is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- while litigation expenses are assessed at Rs. 2000/- . Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint until full and final realization . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 5.6.2017
