Case No.CC/256/2015

Date of Institution: -03.06.2015

Order Reserved on: -22.08.2024

           Date of Order: -05.11.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain

R/o Flat No. 217, Pocket-K,

Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.

          …. Complainant

VERSUS

Malik Photo Studio

458, GulzariLal Nanda Market,

MadanpurKhadar,

New Delhi – 110076.

… Opposite Party

O R D E R

Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member

1. The Complainant hired the services of the OP on 07.10.2014 for the engagement and marriage function of his son to be held on 25.10.2014 and 27.11.2014 at Golden Crown Plaza, New Delhi and Paradise Banquet, respectively.A cash memo for Rs.26,450/- was issued tothe Complainant by the OP for the same.
2. The Complainant alleges that the OP visited the Complainant’s premises several times to finalise the assignment details, wherein the OP promised to provide a copy of the clicked photos after sending the draft copy of the selected photographsfor the album and the final printed album.The breakup of consideration amount of Rs.26,450/- was as follows:

• 65 sheets @ 330 per sheet for the album = Rs.21,450/- with nearly 30 sheets for the engagement album and the balance 35 sheets for the marriage album.
• Video of the marriage function = Rs.5000/-

3. The Complainant paid Rs.1000/- as advance out of the total amount of Rs.26450/- on 07.10.2014, and the OP issued invoice/bill/cash memo number 7800 towards booking the services for both the functions, i.e. engagement and marriage function.
4. The Complainant states that on 25.10.2014, the OP and one helper came to the venue and clicked the photographs at the function, after which the Complainant paid Rs.5000/- to the OP. The Complainant states that he requested the OP to issue a receipt for the payment of Rs.5000/-, which the OP promised to deliver at the Complainant’s residence.But the OP did not do the same to date.
5. The OP had assured the Complainant that he would share the photos of the event within 7 days from the date of engagement via CD at the Complainant’s house. However, the OP kept delaying handing over the pictures and finally delivered them to the Complainant after 20 days.
6. Out of almost 600 photographs,the OP asked the Complainant to select the photographs required within 10 days, which the Complainant stated was not possible since the marriage function of his son was scheduled to be held on 27.11.2014.Later, on perusing the photographs, the Complainant found that the OP had not taken picturesatthe important junctures of the ceremony and immediately visited the OP shop. When he inquired about the lack of photographs of the ceremony, he was informed that the Complainant should have hired multiple photographers to cover the function. The Complainant also felt that the resolution of the photographswas lacking.
7. The Complainant alleges that the OP refused to cover the Complainant’s son's wedding, which was only 5 days away, after providing the higher-resolution photos of the engagement ceremony via a CD. The Complainant was forced to hire a photographer a few days before the marriage function of his son on 27.11.2024, whichcaused him financial loss, mental stress and agony.
8. The Complainant repeatedly called upon the OP to collect the photos after selecting the pictures he wanted, but the OP delayed collecting the selected photos from the Complainant. The OP finally took the pictures in a pen drive in January 2015 to create the album and sent the draft version of the album to the Complainant on 14.01.2015.
9. The OP further did not make the minor changes in the album which the Complainant requested the OP to make via e-mail dated 08.03.2015. The Complainant even visited the OP shop in March 2015, but the OP did not make any effort to hand over the album to the Complainant.When the Complainant requested for a receipt towards the amount of Rs.5000/- paid to the OP on 25.10.2014, the OP refused to do so. The Complainant alleges that the OP promised to deliver the album on 18.04.2015, but the Complainant has not received the same.
10. Aggrieved by the lackadaisical attitude of the OP, the Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP. He has prayed for Rs.20,000/- towards hiring an additional photographer for the marriage function, Rs.45,000/- for mental agony suffered by the Complainant and his family and Rs.30,000/- towards litigation costs.
11. The Complainant has annexed the e-mails exchanged between the contesting parties alongwith his complaint. The bill dated 07.10.2014 for Rs.26,450/- out of which Rs.1000/- was paid by the Complainant, and the balance payment was to be made of Rs.24,450/-. 
12. On notice, the OP filed a reply stating therein that, admittedly, the Complainant approached the OP to book their service for 25.10.2024 and 27.11.2014 for his son's wedding on 07.10.2014. The Complainant, however, only paid Rs.1000/- as an initial payment. Reposing faithin the Complainant’s word regarding paying the balance payment, the OP clicked the photographs of the engagement function.But the Complainant did not make any further payment, which he said would be made after the original high-resolution CD was given to him.
13. The OP states in his reply that he gave the Complainant the CD with low resolution as usually the customer took the CD and got the photographs developed from another shop, which causeda loss to the OP.   The Complainant, instead of making the payment for the services already taken, demanded a high-resolution CD. The OP handed over the high-resolution CDto himwhen the Complainant promised to pay the balance payment within a week. Meanwhile, the Complainant is liable to pay Rs.7,910/- against the work already done. However, the Complainant did not make the balance payment and instead issued a notice to the OP, further cancelling the services for the marriage function,which caused the OP to suffer a loss. Hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
14. The Complainant filed the rejoinder and affidavit in evidence, reiterating the statement as made in the complaint. The OP filed the affidavit of Sh. Manjeet Ram Vakil, proprietor of OP Photo Studio, who also echoed the statements as made in the reply.Both the parties filed their written arguments. None appeared despite several opportunities to address oral argument in the present complaint, and hence, we felt it prudent to decide the present complaint due to the long pendency of the case.
15. We have given our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and have also perused the documents filed by the contesting parties. We found that the Complainant hired the services of OP Photo Studio on 07.10.2014 for the marriage function of his son to be held on 25.10.2014 and 27.11.2014 in Delhi. The total consideration amount for clicking the pictures for the two events was decided as Rs.26,450/- between the two parties.
16. The Complainant, at the time of booking the OP’s services on 07.10.2014, paid an advance/initial payment of Rs.1000/- as reflected in the bill issued by the OP and annexed with the complaint. The OP promised to give 65 sheets @ 330/- per sheet for the album for a sum of Rs.21,450/- with normal 30 sheets for the engagement album and 35 sheets for the marriage album, alongwith a video for the marriage function.
17. Admittedly, the OP covered the engagement function of the Complainant’s son on 25.10.2014 and clicked the pictures of the ceremony. The Complainant alleges that he paid Rs.5,000/- to the OP in front of his family members as part payment towards the balance payment of Rs.25,450/- left after payment of Rs.1,000/- at the time of booking of OP services on 07.10.2024. This fact is denied by the OP, who states that the Complainant only paid Rs.1,000/- for the services already taken by the Complainant.
18. Thereafter, the Complainant kept approaching the OP to send the CD with the pictures, which the OP sent after a delay and that too of low resolution as per their own testimony. The OP gave the higher resolution CD only after the Complainant insisted on the same. The Complainant, unsure of the OP’s ability to complete the work, visited the OP's shop, but allegedly, the OP misbehaved with the Complainant and also refused to click pictures at his son’s marriage function. Left without a photographer, the Complainant was forced to hire the services of a new photographer only 5 days before his son’s marriage at a substantially higher price.The Complainant also states that as per the promise made by the OP, the album of the engagement ceremony has still not been developed and handed over to him.
19. In our considered view, the case of the Complainant hinges on whether the Complainant made a part payment of Rs.5,000/- to cover the services already rendered by the OP on 25.10.2014. The Complainant has not filed any receipt/document/message/e-mail to show that the amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid to the OP for the pictures clicked at the engagement ceremony after the event was over, as stated by the Complainantin his testimony.
20. In the absence of any cogent evidence to prove that the complainant paid for the services already provided by the OP we are, constrained to dismiss the present case without costs.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to Record Room.
• Announced in the open Court on 05.11.2024.