District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly

PETITIONER

VS.

OPPOSITE PARTY

Complaint Case No.CC/116/2023

(Date of Filing:-10.06.2023)

Sri Subhabrata Dholey

Bhadreswar Station Road, Station Bazar, Hooghly, WB-712124

……..Complainant

   -Versus  

           Pallab’s Photography (Prop:- Pallab Nandy)

           Bamangachi, North 24-Parganas

           WB- 743248                                                     …….Opposite Party

Before:-

          Mr. Debashis Bandyopdhyay, President

Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

Mrs. Babita Choudhury, Member

PRESENT:

Dtd. 31.05.2024

Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member

Having been aggrieved over and dissatisfied with placing of an order with the OP for capturing still photo and videos of his marriage, for making one ‘Canavera’ Album, for preparing cinematic video with trailer and also for providing the raw photos of marriage separately in a pen drive, and subsequent non-delivery ofmost of the items ordered, in spite of payment of a substantial amount as advance, the instant complaint petition has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Firstly, it should be mentioned here before proceeding further in the matter of disposal of this case, that the case runs ex parte against the sole OP, as, in spite of proper service of notice and allowance of sufficient time and opportunities, the OP did not appear before this Commission even on a single occasion. Thus question of submission of written version and evidence on affidavit by the OP does not arise.

The fact of the case is that the complainant, in connection with his own marriage made a verbal agreement with the OP who reportedly had specialization and reputation in the field of photography, for capturing still photos and videos of his marriage, for making one photo album, and also providing raw photos separately in a pen drive and paid an amount of Rs.2,000/- as advance on 12.07.2021. Total cost of the entire job was estimated at Rs.24,000/-

On 31.07.2021 after completion of the shooting of the marriage, further payment of Rs.20,000/- was made to the OP. Balance payment of Rs.2,000/- was to be made at the time of delivery.

Allegedly after repeated requests, the OP delivered the photo album only. However, the cinematic video with trailer and the pen drive containing the raw photos of marriage were not delivered even after repeated requests and personal visit at the OP’s declared place of business.

The OP expressed his inability to deliver the items on the plea that the respective files were deleted from the computer. Sending of reminder mails, lodging of complaint with State Consumer Affairs Department, lodging of complaint with National Consumer forum yielded no positive result.

Continuous and untiring persuasions through different ways proved to be futile exercises.

The Complainant has annexed a list of events in chronological order, the copies of respective invoice related to advance payment made to the OP, corresponding bank statement, grievance lodged with respective wing of the Consumer Affairs Department, mail received from the OP, mail sent to the OP by the Complainant and exchange of Whatsappmessages.

Considering the OP’s treatment with him as ‘deficiency in service and unfair trade practice’ the complaint petition has been filed in which the petitioner prays for imposing direction upon the OP to make refund of the entire amount of advance payment of Rs.22,000/- , to deliver the items ordered, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony, litigation cost which is not specified and any other reliefs which is deemed fit and proper by the Commission.

The Complainant’s declared address is within the district of Hooghly.

The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit as prescribed by the Act.

Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

 Materials on records viz. the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit, annexed documents and brief notes of argument filed by the complainant are perused.

                   However, the OP did not feel it a necessity to appear before this forum, observe the basic statutory formality by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and by taking part in the argument.

In view of the above and on perusal of the case record and documents, this Commission is of the opinion that there was gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the OP’s part.   

Hence, it is     

ORDERED

that CC No.116/2023 be and the same is partly allowed ex parte.

The Commission hereby directs the OP either to deliver all the photographic items ordered or pay back the entire advance payment of Rs.22,000/- to the Complainant with interest @9% for the period from 31.07.2021 to the actual date of payment of the principal amount. Besides, the OP will also pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and Rs 5,000/-towards litigation cost to the complainant.

OP is being directed to comply with this order within 45 days of this order failing which the OP will be liable to pay a further amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Consumer Legal Aid Account . Thus the complaint case bearing no.CC/116/2023 succeeds on contest but in part.  Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.