Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/6/2019

J Joseph Silvestar Vivek - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Matrimony. Com - Opp.Party(s)

M/s Rajesh Babu

17 Jun 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed: 14.12.2018                                                    

Date of Reservation     :  19.05.2022                                                   

                                                                              Date of Order              :  17.06.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

                       PRESENT:    TMT. B JIJAA, M.L.,                                        : PRESIDENT

                                              THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                                              THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,     : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.6 /2019

FRIDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF JUNE 2022

Mr.J.Joseph Silvester Vivek,

S/o Joe Sagayam,

No.9/29, Jakkammal Street,

Postal Audit Colony,

Saligramam, Chennai – 600093.                                     …Complainant

 

-Vs-

M/s Matrimony.com Limited,

Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

No.94, TVH Beliciaa Towers,

10^th Floor, Tower-2,

MRC Nagar,

Chennai – 600 028.                                                     …Opposite Party

 

*****

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. V.Rajesh Babu

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : Exparte

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

1. Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

        The complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, and prays to Rs.5,00,000/- for damages and Rs.10,00,000/- for compensation for the deficiency of the service, delay, mental agony and hardship and Rs.35,000/- for litigation cost.

2.   The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The case of the Complainant is that he had contacted the Opposite Party, who had represented that they are offering photography and videography services for wedding and other function and explained that they have good reputation in the market. Believing the words of the Opposite Party, the Complainant decided to avail the services of the Opposite Party and opted for the wedding cum reception package which included soft copies of photos, Compact Disc containing the video footage and album of photographs and the cost of service package was fixed at Rs.35,000/- and paid an advance amount of Rs.6000/- was paid as cash on 18.12.2016 for which a receipt was issued by the Opposite Party. Subsequently a sum of Rs.11,500/- through NEFT was paid on 30.01.2017 and the balance amount was to be paid after the handing over of the album and video footage.  The employees of the Opposite Party shot the wedding at the church and the reception in the Marriage Hall at Neyveli on 21.01.2017. The Complainant had a tough time posing for the photos and video as the photographer and the videographer of the Opposite Party have lacked professional expertise. The Complainant was promised by the cameramen of the Opposite Party they will send him the soft copies of all the photos and video footage shot at the wedding and reception. Even after a lapse of more than a month, the photos and video footage were not handed over as assured by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party delivered the photos in the month of March 2017 and assured of delivering the video footage shortly. Even after constant follow up with the Opposite Party the Opposite Party has not handed over the video footage till date. In the first week of May 2017, the representative of the Opposite Party contacted the Complainant and requested to visit the office to discuss about the issue. When the Complainant visited the office of the Opposite Party on 10.05.2017 to his utter shock after a lapse of almost 5 months he was informed that the video footages of his wedding and reception were lost on 21.01.2017 due to theft in the studio of the Opposite Party, which has caused severe mental agony and hardship to the Complainant. The Opposite Party had lodged a complaint before the Periyathatchur Police Station and the First Information Report was made in Cr.No.27/2017. The Complainant wanted to preserve the video footage as a treasure in order to relive the happiest moment of his life, was ruined by the irresponsible attitude of not protecting the said footage and the lethargic manner in which the Opposite Party had acted. The Complainant had issued a legal notice dated 10.06.2017 to the Opposite Party for which there was no response from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is guilty of deficiency in service and bound to pay compensation. Hence the complaint.

3.    The Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Complainant Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-4 were marked. Notice served to the Opposite Party. In spite of receipt of the notice the Opposite Party had failed to appear and hence Opposite Party was called absent and set exparte.

4.   Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether the Opposite Party committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief claimed?
3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

5.   Point No.1:-

The Complainant contended that he had approached the Opposite Party for taking photography and videography services for his wedding to be held on 21.01.2017 at Neyveli. The Opposite Party assured that having earned good reputation in the market they would offer best services and believing the words of the Opposite Party, the Complainant had availed the services of the Opposite Party for taking photography and videography for his wedding, the service package was fixed at Rs.35,000/- and a sum of Rs.6,000/- was paid as advance by the Complainant to the Opposite Party, who had issued a receipt bearing No.4471 dated 18.12.2016 as per Ex.A-1. It was contended that a sum of Rs.11,500/- was also paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party through NEFT 0n 30.01.2017 and the balance to be paid at the time of handing over of the album and video footage. On 21.01.2017, the photographer and videographer shot the wedding and reception and promised to hand over the soft copies of the photos, video coverage. However, after a long delay, in March 2017, soft copies of photos alone delivered and the video footage was not delivered. On 10.05.2017 when the Complainant visited the Opposite Party he was informed that the video footage of the wedding and reception were lost on 21.01.2017 due to theft in the studio, the F.I.R copy is Ex.A-2.

Ex.A-3 is the legal notice sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party calling upon the Opposite Party to hand over the video footage of his wedding held on 21.01.2017 at Neyveli, which was acknowledged by the Opposite Party as per Ex.A-4.  However failed to respond.

The Opposite Party had informed about the theft of the video only on 10.05.2017 after a lapse of 4 months, from 21.01.2017 which was not intimated even at the time of handing over the soft copies of the Photos to the Complainant. Marriage and reception are happy moments to be cherished and due to the negligent act of the Opposite Party the Complainant and his family members lost the opportunity of watching the happy moments of wedding through video footage, which would have definitely caused stress and mental agony the Complainant.

Hence, this Commission is of the considered view that the act of the Opposite Party in not handing over the video footage shot by the camera man of the Opposite Party at the wedding and reception which took place on 21.01.2017 to the Complainant  clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant.

6.   Point No.2 & 3:-

        As point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and hardship caused to the Complainant due the deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Party and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint, within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of payment. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in favour of the Complainant.

        In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) for the  deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Party and  for mental agony and hardship caused to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost of the complaint, within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of payment.

In the result the complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 17^th of June 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

          MEMBER II                         MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	18.12.2016	Copy of the Order & Agreement Form
Ex.A2	24.01.2017	Copy of the First Information Report
Ex.A3	10.06.2017	Copy of the Legal Notice
Ex.A4	13.06.2017	Copy of the Acknowledgment Card

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:

NIL

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT