Punjab

Sangrur

CC/544/2015

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Bansal Studio - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ramit Pathak

21 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.  544 

                                                 Instituted on:    01.07.2015

                                                 Decided on:       21.03.2016

 

 

1.Raj Kumar son of Shri Buggi Ram R/O Indira Basti, Sunam, District Sangrur.

2.Bhushan Kumar S/o Raj Pal R/o Dirba District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainants

                                        Versus

 

M/s. Bansal Studio, Main Bazar, Dirba, Sangrur through its Prop/Owner Satish Kumar.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Ramit Pathak, Advocate.

For opposite party    :       Shri Sumir Fatta, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Raj Kumar and Bhushan Kumar, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the OP by hiring the service of the OP for the coverage of marriage function, as such, the complainants got booked the Brij View Palace for the marriage function. It is further averred that on 14-15 August, 2013, the Op visited the said palace along with  the complainants and suggested that the palace is not tidy and the movie will not give good result, as such, the complainant booked Star Light Farm for better results, for which the complainant had to spent extra money.  It is further averred that at the time of doli, the OP demanded Rs.25,000/- from the complainant in the presence of Sanjeev Kumar and other guests and humiliated the complainant in front of all the relatives, which was paid.  Thereafter the OP again approached the complainant and demanded Rs.15,000/- from the complainant, which was paid and by this way, the complainant paid Rs.40,000/- in total, but the OP did not supply the material and demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/- more from the complainant.  As such, the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- more to the OP and thereafter the OP gave 5 mixing CDs, out of which one CD is totally corrupt and did not play and there are only 250-300 photographs in the album whereas he clicked about 1100-1200 photographs in the function and the Op cut the photographs without the consent of the complainant.  It is further averred that the photographs show different shadows and the OP has not got the computerised designing of the album.  It is further averred that the master copies of the movies have not been supplied by the Op despite the fact that the complainant approached the OP a number of times and despite the fact the OP charged a huge amount of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant number 1 also filed a petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sangrur on 10.09.2014 against the OP, where the OP appeared and filed the reply, but the petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on 5.5.2015 and as such has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant the whole amount of Rs.60,000/- or otherwise to prepare a new album and to make the CDs as per the agreed quality with computerised mixing and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint has been filed by concealing true facts from the Forum. On merits, the allegations of the complainant have been denied in toto.  It is stated that the complainant number 2 hired the services for his marriage on 18.8.2013 and after completion of the work, the OP handed over the CDs and photographs as per asking of the complainant number 2. It has been denied that the OP visited any palace along with the complainants and suggested them that the palace is not tidy and the photographs and movie will not give good results due to untidiness. It has been denied that the complainant demanded an amount of Rs.25,000/- in the presence of Sanjeev Kumar son of Madan Lal or other guests. Rather it has been denied that the complainant give any amount of Rs.25,000/- and further there is denial of the OP about the receipt of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant. The receipt of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant is also denied.   It is stated that the complainant number 2 hired the services of OP and the complainant number 1 is the father in law of the complainant number 2 and after completion of the work, the OP handed over the CDs and photographs as per asking of the complainants and received the payment from the complainant.  It is further stated that the complainant number 1 also filed a petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sangrur and in that petition complainant number 2 was not a party and now complainant number 2 filed the preset complaint only to adduce evidence.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 affidavits, Ex.C-4 copy of album title page, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-35 photographs, Ex.C-36 copy of CDs, Ex.C-37 copy of order dated 5.5.2015, Ex.C-38 copy of reply, Ex.C-39 to Ex.C-43 CDs and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit of the OP and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact of the OP that the complainant number 2 hired the services of the OP for coverage of his marriage function and to prepare the album for the marriage.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that despite charging of the full amount by the OP from the complainant, the OP failed to do perfect work of video as well as photographs and the master copies of the same were not supplied to the complainant.  Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 are the photographs of the complainants on the same lines of each other, whereas Ex.C-3 is the affidavit of one Raj Kumar.   Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-35 are the photographs, which are alleged to be not in perfect condition.  A bare perusal of the complaint clearly shows that after receiving the payment, the OP delivered album and movie CDs to the complainant. There is no evidence on record to show that the photographs Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-35 have been prepared by the OP.  Further we failed to understand from where these photographs were brought on record, as there is no evidence on record that the OP ever supplied loose photographs to the complainant.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant also brought the album in question before this Forum for our perusal and on perusal, we find nothing wrong in the photographs affixed in the album by the OP. Further the complainant has not produced on record any documentary evidence to show that he paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the OP in lieu of charges for preparing the album and CDs, whereas the OP has clearly denied this fact in its written reply. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any expert evidence on record to show that the CDs as well as the photographs are not proper or the same have not been properly prepared/mixed.  Under these circumstances, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to establish any case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP in preparing the album and CDs. 

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 21, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member