Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/128/2021

Gagandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gagandeep Goel

10 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/128/2021
Date of Institution	:	01/03/2021
Date of Decision	:	10/09/2024

 

Gagandeep Singh aged 33 years son of Sh.Gulab Singh, Resident of House No.252-C, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh.

 

.....Complainant

Versus

 

1. Oyo Hotels and Homes Private Limited, having its registered office at Ground Floor-001, Mauryansh Elanza, Shyamal Cross Road, Nr. Parekh Hospital, SATELITE NA. Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.

 

2. Weddingz.in through its authorized person having registered office at Flat No.111, 1st Floor, New Delhi House 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

 

2^nd Address:- having Head Office at 210, 2^nd Floor, Hubtown Solaris, Prof NS Phadke Marg, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069, Nr. Bisleri.

.....Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Gagandeep Goel, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate for OPs.

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant engaged the OP No.1 for the purpose of providing photography services at his wedding which was scheduled to happen on 18th Jan, 2020 at Sector 43, Chandigarh and Baba BalakNath Dharamshala Sector-29, and on 19th Jan, 2020 at Gurudwara Saab in Chandigarh and Hometel Hotel Industrial Area, Phase 1 Chandigarh and the schedule in reference to the pre-wedding shoot and wedding shoot was given to the complainant in writing by the OP (Ex.C-1). The complete payment was settled at a total amount of Rs.68,000/-. The complainant was paid an amount of Rs.54,400/- to the OP for providing the said services mentioned in Ex.C-1. The complainant wants to highlight the details of other services which have not been provided by the opposite party to the complainant:-

A. Traditional videography:- Re-edit requested, Still not done.

B. The data relating to candid photography has not been delivered at all and only the traditional photography has been delivered to the complainant by the OP.

C. The cinematic video highlights have not been delivered to the complainant by the OP.

D. The Drone videography and photography was not done as Drone was not made available by the opposite party on any day of the function.

E. The pre-wed video shoot and Drone was not done by the opposite party.

    The complainant kept on corresponding with the OP telephonically through telephonic calls and Whatsapp chatting with the concerned persons of the OPs but they did not give a clear answer regarding the claims raised by the complainant (Ex.C-4). Even after multiple reminders over a period of 8 to 10 months, the OP has not been able to supply the relevant data relating to the pre-wedding photography, wedding day photography and post-wedding photography as mentioned in Exhibit C-1 and now the OP has virtually refused to supply the complainant with the relevant photography data. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.

2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the OP No.1 & 2 have shared the relevant photographs and videos with the complainant, however, due to the scare of Covid-19, the OP No.1 was working with limited staff with limited access and equipments. Therefore, it is submitted that there was a delay in providing the relevant pictures and videos to the complainant within the given period of time. Further, as per the booked package, the complainant failed to choose the pictures and make 20% of the payment amounting to INR13,600/- to the OP No.1 which was to be paid on deliverables as per the said package. OP No.1 is not at fault as there was delay in complainant’s part as well in selecting photographs. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the requisite services were given to the Complainant as per schedule, and even the data was delivered to the Complainant. It is further stated that the complainant failed to make the remaining payment of 20% amounting to 13,600/- to OP No.2, even after receiving photographs and videos. The complainant was supposed to select the photographs and share the same with the OP No.2 which complainant failed to provide and the said payment was to be made by the complainant on delivery of photographs which the complainant did not select. The Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.2 and has wrongly alleged the OP No.2 for wrongful conduct. There was delay by Opposite Party due to the COVID 19 situation around the world. Hence, the present complaint is infructuous as the OP No.2 duly supplied the deliverables to the Complainant as agreed. Copy of the email dated 11.04.2021 attached with the documents sent to the complainant is annexed herewith as "Annexure -C". On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.2.
4.     No rejoinder filed.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     Admittedly, events of marriage which were covered by the OPs were of dates 18.1.2020 and 19.1.2020 and as per the case of the complainant 80% of the agreed amount to the tune of Rs.54,400/- was paid in advance out of Rs.68,000/- total agreed payable amount to the OPs for their services. The complainant has highlighted the details of various services which could not be provided by the OPs which are mentioned as below:-

    A. Traditional videography:- Re-edit requested, Still not done.

B. The data relating to candid photography has not been delivered at all and only the traditional photography has been delivered to the complainant by the OP.

    C. The cinematic video highlights have not been delivered to the complainant by the OP.

D. The Drone videography and photography was not done as Drone was not made available by the opposite party on any day of the function.

    E. The pre-wed video shoot and Drone was not done by the opposite party.

 

    Even the wedding photos and videos of the event were withhold by the OPs. Due to aforesaid reasons the present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant on 1.3.2021 i.e., after more than one year of the scheduled event. 

8.     After going through the documents on record, it is abundantly clear as per Annexure-C dated 11.4.2021 filed by the OP No.2 that the relevant photographs and the videography was shared by the OPs approximately after one year and four months of the event in question. Most importantly, the 80 per cent amount was received by the OPs in advance before the event and even then admission on the part of the OPs that there was delay on their part and also the event could not be covered of the standard as promised before the agreement due to unavoidable panic situation/circumstances of Covid-19 indicates the poor standard of the services of OPs. OP No.1 due to this very reason has subsequently agreed to waive off the remaining 20 per cent amount which is still payable by the complainant. As per OP No.1, it is a technology-enabled wedding planning platform whereby users can explore, choose and book from hundreds of listed venues that cater to the weddings, such as photography, videography, choreography, Mehndi and other wedding functions alonwith other events and other needs of the user. It is further submitted as per the policy & business model; it executes agreement with the owner of several venues as well as non-venue services to provide one-stop-shop for all wedding services anchored around wedding venues in the country.
9.     In our view believing the standard of services of OPs only the complainant got the agreement executed for the photography/videography services by the OPs. Admittedly, even the album could not be provided by the OPs in time as per agreement. Hence, the act of OPs for non-providing proper services and forcing the complainant to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation proves deficiency in services on their part and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.   
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are, jointly & severally, directed as under:-

1. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
2. to pay ₹7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.     This order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, till realization, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
12.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
10/09/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member