West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/31/2019

Mrs. Soumi Sarkar Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Partha Pratim Chowdhury - Opp.Party(s)

Souvik Dey

21 Sep 2021

ORDER

This case has been filed by the complainant No. 1.Mrs. Soumi Sarkar Ghosh, 2. Mr. Vivekananda Ghosh, and 3. Mr. Subrata Sarkar on under Sec- 12 of the C.P Act 1986, against the Partha Pratim Chowdhury Residing at Chandpur, P.O. Baidyanagar, P.S. Purbasthali, Dist. East Burdwan.

            The facts of the case, to put in nut shell are as below.

            That the complainant Mrs. Soumi Sarkar Ghosh and Mr. Vivekananda Gosh are the resident of Bolpur School Bagan P.O+P.S. Bolpur hired the Opposite party is a businessman and name of his business is “M/s Vivah (Love met Life)”. He running his business to taking and shooting photography and videography of marriage ceremonies or other cultural program’s or any kind of ceremonies for making various kind of Photo Album and edited Videography C.D/D.V.D or any kind of electronics format which is demanded by his customer.

            That the complainants above named hired this OP for the purpose of taking and shooting of photography and videography of wedding ceremony of complainant No. 1 and 2 and they also execute an agreement for same. The OP offered the complainants a package for entire photo shoot including videography worth Rs. 68,000/- excluding travel fare for three days covering the entire event of wedding, bedai, badhubaran, reception, pre-wedding photo shoot and post wedding photo shoot, all photos and video including 150 edited photo with camera album and edited video in their package.

            That the marriage of the complainant No. 1 and 2 was held on 10/03/2016 at Dhulian, Mursidabad at the house of complainant No. 3 i.e paternal house of complainant No. 1. After the marriage, other two days ceremonies including reception were held in Bolpur at the house of Complainant No. 2 i.e in law’s house of complainant No. 1 . That the OP would cover the entire event from marriage ceremony to reception held at Dhulian and Bolpur and pre-wedding and post wedding photo-shoot held various locations of Kolkata.

            That at the time of agreement this complainants paid Rs. 20000/- by cash as an advance and also booked train tickets for camera-men from Howrah to Dhulian by incurring an expenditure of Rs. 5000/- and gave car allowance of Rs. 2000/- for Bolpur, Birbhum.

            That after completion of marriage ceremony, the complainant No. 3 paid rest of the due amount of Rs. 48000/- to the OP by RTGS transaction from his business Account from the State Bank Of India

 

(Aurangabad Branch) on the date of 17/03/2016 and debited in his account dated 30/03/2016 but the OP did not even shoot pre wedding photo of the complainant No. 1 and 2 as per agreement.

            That at the time of agreement this OP promised to delivers all the photography and videography of wedding ceremony of complainant No. 1 and 2 to the complainants with three month from the month of marriage and after full payment but this OP failed to do so.

            That after three months from the month of marriage these complaints repeatedly requested this OP to send the all photography album and edited videography as per their agreement but this OP did not pay any heed and deliberately avoiding these complainants.

            Thereafter this OP sends only photography Album to this complainant No. 1 and 2 in the month of November, 2017 i.e. after one and half years of said marriage ceremony but he did not send/delivered any edited Videography or raw video recording/footage of said marriage ceremony to these complainants till today.

            That this complainants any time requested this OP to deliver the Videography or refund the amount which was paid but this complainant as per agreement but this OP intentionally and deliberately avoiding the same and thereafter this complainant No. 1 and 2 send a legal notice regarding the matter of non-sending wedding videography to this OP on 18/04/2018 and 16/05/2018.

            That the complainant No. 1 for the purpose of settlement the matter file a petition before Sub-Divisional Legal Services Authority: Bolpur on 17/07/2018 and after receiving the notice this OP appear before the Authority on the date of 20/08/20218 and said that he unable to deliver the videography but he make written promise to refund the amount which he was taken for videography as well as compensation i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- within a three month as on the date of appear; but he failed to do the same.

            That there after the complainant requested several time to the OP to delivered entire video footage of the said marriage ceremony to these complainants other refund the excess amount i.e. Rs. 68,000/-with interest which he has taken from these complainants for the purpose of making videography and lastly on 18/04/2018 and 16/05/2018 the complainant No. 1 and 2 send a legal notice regarding the matter of non-sending weeding videography to made payment but he did not pay any heed on the request to the complainant having no other after time the complainant has come to the Forum/Commission for proper \relief.

            Complainant filed one postal Track Consignment where from it appears that “Item Delivered” on 03/02/2020 to one B. Chaudhuri whose name appears in the case till of petition of complainant but OP side none appears and no step taken by him. Accordingly the case be heard exparte against the OP.

            Upon pleading of the parties the following points are to be considered for discussion of the case.

Point for determination/Issues.

1. Whether the complaint is a Consumer or not?
2. Whether this Forum/Commission has jurisdiction to try this Case?
3. Whether there in any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP?
4. Whether the complaint is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

            All the above 4 issues are taken up together for the sake of convince of consideration. During the trial the complainant examined himself and submitted some documents in support of this case.

            Heard argument of the Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant.

Point No. 1:- Evidently the complainant No. 1 and 2 hired this OP for the purpose of taking and shooting of photography and videography of their wedding ceremony and they also execute on agreement of Rs.68,000/- excluding travel fare for three days covering the entire event of weeding pre and post photo shoot and videography on 17/01/2016.

          So, the complainant is a Consumer U/S 2(1) (d) of the C.P Act 1986.

Point No. 2:- Total Valuation of the case is Rs. 68,000/- for video recording and pre post weeding’s photo shoot travelling allowance 10,000/- compensation 2,80,000/-+1,000 unfair trade practice Total =4,58,000/- which is for that maximum limit of this jurisdiction i.e. (20,0000) therefore this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4:- Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other. From the evidence and other materials on record it is evident that one agreement was done between the parties to take photos and video graphic footage on the wedding ceremony of the complainant at a total consideration of Rs. 68,000/-.

            But the OP failed to deliver the videography footage of the wedding ceremony of the complainant.

            That proved that OP was deficient in providing service further from the documents filed by the complainant regarding pre litigation case the deficiency is Kristal clear.

            So, we have no hesitation to hold the view that the OP is not negligent.

            Further it appear from the documents of the complainant prior to filing of this case the complainant had approached to the Sub-divisional (Taluk) Legal Service Committee, Bolpur, Birbhum on 17/07/2018 and filed one pre litigation case being No. PLA 1071/18 and it is seen that one compromise was held on 20/08/2018 in between the parties where the OP under took make payment of 2,00000/- within three months from the date of this order. but the said order has not been complied with by the OP as the said compromise has not been materialized. The complainant filed this case which we think that this case cannot operate as resjudicata because the earlier case filed by the complainant was a case was pre litigation in nature and no adjuration was taken place but the complainant cannot insist upon the said earlier order and he is debarred from calming any money in view of the previous order as he filed this case and get relief from this case.

            Considering overall matter into consideration and materials on record we are considered to hold the complainant has been able to prove this case and he is entitled to get videography footage of their wedding ceremony or pay the released amount which they paid to the OP concern along with interest of 6% per annum from 17/01/2016 till realization.

            But it is admitted fact that the OP concern lost the videography footage it is further admitted fact that the OP concern got Rs. 68,000/- total amount for the purpose of pre and post weeding photo shooting and videography and travelling allowance of Rs. 10,000/-.

            To be mentioned that loss the sustained by the petitioner does not compensate by money value and Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded as compensation considering over all matter.

            .………..As the OP handed over the still photograph of the wedding ceremony of the complainant therefore the OP is deficient for the videography only.

            As the total contract money Rs. 68,000/- but no separate cost for still photograph is mentioned anywhere in the evident we therefore reduce Rs. 10,000/- from award amount.

            Further it appears to us that the OP went to the place of weeding ceremony and took photograph and therefore he must have incurred expenses towards cost of jurney etc. therefore we think it a appropriate to deduct Rs. 5,000/- from the award amount.

Before we discuss the points, let us look at the documentary evidence.

            The following documents have been filed by the complainant.

 

 

1. Payment receipts dated 17/01/2016.
2. Counter foil of Bank payment sheep regarding payment on 17/03/2016.
3. Statement of account on 04/03/2018.
4. Copy of legal notice dt. 18/04/2018
5. Copy of the legal notice dt. 16/05/2018.
6. Copy of application to S.D.L.S.A dt. 17/07/2018.
7. Written reply of opposite party dt. 11/10/2018.
8. Certified copy of Written Settlement copy beofe SDLSA dt. 20/08/2018.
9. Certified copy of order sheet of SDLSA dt. 20/08/2018.
10. Track consignment dated 03/02/2020.

The affidavit-in-chief filed by the complainant on 05/04/2021.

The B.N.A was not filed by the complainant.

Perused the affidavit-in-chief and annexed documents.

            Unchallenged testimony of the complainant has established the deficiency in service on the point of OP by non-sending weeding videography of the compliant.

            All the issues are thus decided in favour of the complainant but in the following manner. 

                                    Hence, it is,    

                        O R D E R E D,

that the instant C.F Case No. CC/31/2019 be and same is allowed exparte against the opposite party with cost 2,000/-.

            However consoling over all matter I think the hence of justice would be meted up if OP is to directed to make refund of Rs. 68,000/-+10,000/- after deduction Rs. 15,000/- as aforesaid to the complainant i.e. the complainant is entitled to get of Rs. 63,000/- with 6% interest per annum form 17/01/2016 till realization.

            The OP is also directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and deficiency in service.

Let a copy of this final order be given/handed over to the Petitioner and to all the Op separately by post free of cost at once.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Copy of this order be supplied free of cost.