ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. Complainant’s case is that she entrusted the opp.party to record the the matrimonial function of her son which solemnized on14.12.2006. She gave Rs.700/- as advance and the balance consideration is Rs.3500/-. The assistants of the opp.party recorded the marriage ceremony within presence of the opp.party. On 1.1.2007 the complainant approached the opp.party to enquire about the video cassette. The opp.party assured that work will be completed soon. Thereafter the complainant’s son died. On 24.2.2007 she entrusted balance Rs.3500/- to the opp.party but he did not give the said video cassette to the complainant So on 5.5.2007 she lodged a complaint against the opp.party before the police station, Eroor. As per the direction of the Sub Inspector of Police, Eroor Police Station the opp.party handed over a mini DV Disk styled as “Panasonic 60 Mode 90 LP Mode” and made her belief that it contains the recorded version of the marriage. But when she tried to play it with the help of neighbors she knew that it is useless. So she again approached the opp.party to replace the damage disk with the correct one. But she was ill-treated by the opp.party. The acts of the opp.party caused heavy mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Hence the complaint The opp.party filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of a necessary party and for mis-joinder of an unnecessary party. The opp.party has been conducting a photo studio at Channapetta under the name and style of Anil Studio & Video. On 7.12.2006 the complainant engaged the opp.party for recording the marriage ceremony of her son Kann with Shobana which took place on 14.12.2006 at the residence of the bride, that the opp.party agreed to do the said recordings, that the opp.party demanded Rs.4,200/- as consideration and an amount of Rs.700/-was received by the opp.party as advance on 7.12.2006, the complainant agreed to pay the balance of Rs.3,500/- to the opp.party when the disk would be ready and the opp.party agreed for the same, the opp.party and his assistance did the recording of the marriage are false and hence denied. The opp.party is a handicapped person as his right hand is completely paralyzed due to the attack of Polio even since he was 1½ years old. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.450/- towards advance for the said video recording and agreed to pay a balance amount of Rs.1550/- on the very next day of marriage as the complainant assured the Jayakumar that the marriage reception would take place at her residence on 14.12.2006 evening and the balance amount would be paid to the said Jayakumar out of the amount collected from the said function. But unfortunately, the said Sri. Kannan passed away one month after his marriage. Therefore the complainant did not turn up to pay the balance amount of Rs.1550/- to the said Sri. Jayakumar and collect the cassette. In the month April 2008 the complainant approached the opp.party and sought his help in getting the recorded cassette from the said Sri. Jayakumar. The opp.party informed the complainant that since there was such a long lapse in claiming the recorded cassette from Jayakumar, the cassettes must have been damaged due to the attack of fungus and other causes. The opp.party met the said Sri.Jayakumar on the very next day and the opp.party was told by the said Jayakumar that the cassettes which recorded the marriage ceremony of the said Kannan has already been damaged and hence the opp.party did not pay the said amount of Rs.1000/- to Jayakumar but returned the same to the complainant. Subsequently the complainant gave a petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Eroor Police Station and the SI of Polic called the opp.party to the said police station and as a compromise the said damaged cassettes were collected by the opp.party from the Jayaku7mar and returned to the complainant in the presence of the SI. The complainant went to the studio of the opp.party on 1.1.07 and enquired about the video disk and the opp.party informed the complainant that the work on the said cassette is going on and it will be given to her immediately that on 17.2.2007 the complainant went to the studio of the opp.party and later informed her that the CD is almost ready and asked the complainant to come within 1 week with the balance of Rs.3500/- that on 24.2.2007 the complainant collected Rs.3500/- from her daughter-in-law Shobana and paid to the opp.party that thereafter also the complainant visited the studio of the opp.party and all those times the opp.party sent back the complainant under on excuse. The opp. party and demanded replacement of the useless disk with a correct disk and the opp.party got angry and informed her that goods one given will not be taken back and he cannot give a new disk. Due to the said acts of the opp.party the complainants suffered so much of mental pain, financial loss and other losses etc. are false and hence denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer of opp.party. 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party 3. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 toP4 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 to D3 are marked. POINTS: I, II, III For deciding the 1st point is whether the complainant is a consumer of the opp.party, the complain ant’s contention is that she availed the service of the opp.party to record the marriage ceremony of her son and for that she paid Rs.700/- as advance. Opp.party has totally denied the said contention of the complainant. The learned counsel of opp.party argued that the complainant has not produced any receipts, bills or other document to prove the payment of any amount to the opp.party. According to opp.party he directed the complainant to one Mr. Jayakumar and the complainant engaged the Jayakumar to record the wedding ceremony and he received the amount from the complainant. But during cross examination DW.1 deposed that “ LrJ,\ studio and viedeo c\FlerA rmf\fkr\rfk\ Blrlnk\; complainant sRy adsRy ijil<f\fjsRy viedeo tmkf\ffk\ complainant tr\sr ir\rkdn\mjgkr\rk\; BlR vkafhe\semkf\fju Llxlnk\ viedeo record svu\ffk\; ijil<SC,A viedeo cassette ssde\eMkr\rfjrk\ complainanttr\srulnk\ ir\rkdn\mfk\ “ and also in the version opp.party collected the damaged cassette from Jayakumar and returned to the complainant in the presence of the S.I of Police, Eroor. More over the opp.party did not try to examine Mr.Jayakumar as a witness from his side to prove his contentions in the version. By considering all these facts it is clearly shows that the complainant entrusted none other than the opp.party to record the matrimonial function of her son and he receive consideration from the complainant. Hence complainant is a consumer of opp.party. The point found accordingly. The next point to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of opp.party. Opp.parties counsel argued that the Mini Viedio Disk which is alleged to be defective has not been sent for expert opinion nor has any one who has viewed the said cassette being played, being examined to prove the contents. In version the opp.party clearly stated that as a compromise the said “damaged” cassettes were collected by him from the Jayakumar and returned to the complainant. That itself shows that the opp.party admits that the cassette became damaged. Then the disputed cassette need not be sent to the expert for examination. According to the opp.party since the complainant demanded the recorded cassettes only almost 1½ years after the recording were done, it is the negligence on the part of the complainant. But the evidence of PW.1 clearly shows that after the death of her son, she approached the opp.party many time fore getting the recorded cassette. That is why at last she lodged complainant before the Police Station for getting the cassette. By considering the entire evidence we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the side of opp.party. Hence the complainant is entitled to get relief. In the result the complainant is allowed. Opp.party is directed to return Rs.4500/- to the complainant with 9% interest. Opp.party is also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost to the proceedings. The order the to be complied with within one month from the date of this order. Dated this the 28TH day of July, 2010. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. - Valsala List of documents for the complainant P1. – True copy of notice P2. – Postal receipt P3. – Acknowledgement card P4. – Wedding Invitation letter P5. - Mini Video Disk List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Babu List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Lawyer’snotice P2. – Reply notice D3. –Acknowledgement card . | 
