DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 21st day of February 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya.A., Member
Date of filing: 02.11.2018.
CC/138/2018
Thachat Saseendran
Bharatham - Complainant
Alathur Post
Kodunthirapully
Palakkad- 678 004
(Party in Person)
Vs
Raj
Rad Photo Graphy
2nd Floor - Opposite Party
Jobys Mall
G.B. Road
Palakkad – 678 001
(By Adv:Jayan C Thomas)
O R D E R
By Smt Vidya A., Member
1.Brief Facts of the Complaint
1. Complainant along with his daughter visited the opposite party’s shop on 01/10/2018 for purchasing a gift item for his wife’s birthday. They purchased a ceramic tile base for pasting their photo on payment of Rs.680/-. The purchased item which was kept in the show case of their house fell and broke into pieces on the same day. When informed about this, the opposite party told them that they cannot refund the money but will replace it. The complainant went to the opposite party’s shop on 02/10/18. As they could not find out a good replacement, the opposite party told them to take a family photo which they accepted and took a family photo and ordered a 24” X 20” photo with frame. The total price for the 24” X 20” print with frame was Rs.6,900/-. The complaint paid an advance amount of Rs.2,000/-. The opposite party agreed to give a discount of Rs. 400/-and reduce the price of the purchased item from the total amount. But when the complainant enquired about the rate in other shops, he found it was higher than the market rate and informed the opposite party that he need only 9 ” X 6” print out. The opposite party agreed to deliver it on the next day with balance refund. He visited the opposite party’s shop 11 times for this and finally they gave a “9X6” print out on 26th October 2018 without any refund. Actual market price for the same was Rs.150/- for first print out and subsequently Rs.50/- per print.
So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to refund the balance amount of Rs.2,530/- and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony suffered by him and Rs.2,200/- as the travel expenses.
2. Complaint admitted and notice issued to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The main contentions in the version
The opposite party submitted that the complainant is frivolous, imaginary and without any base and denied all the averments in the complaint. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
The opposite party is running photography business since 1990 without any complaints from their customers. The complainant approached the opposite party knowing that he is doing business of personalized gift of tile printing with a clock in it and purchased a gift item worth Rs. 650/- On the next day, the complainant’s wife called the opposite party over telephone and informed that the gift fell down and broken into pieces. The opposite party agreed to replace the same even though it’s not a mistake from their part and they are not responsible for the incident that happened in the complainant’s house
The complainant informed the opposite party that they need a family portrait and wanted to reduce the price of the gift item from the price of family portrait. The complainant along with family came to the opposite party’s studio and selected the photo 24” X 20” with frame and price was discussed and fixed as Rs.6,900/- and the price of the gift Rs.650/- and an additional discount of Rs.400/- was reduced from the price. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards advance and the balance Rs.3,850/- was to be paid on delivery of the product.
The opposite party spent about 3 hrs for the completion of the family photography. The complainant and his family selected the photo to be framed and they were very satisfied with opposite party’s work.
After one week, when the product was ready to deliver, the complainant informed the opposite party that they did not want 24” X 20” size photograph, instead wanted 9” X 6” size photo. But it was not possible since the product was already finished to be delivered to the complainant. The complainant has not responded to take delivery of the ordered product, which was finished and kept in the studio. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and they are entitled to recover an amount Rs.6,900/- from the complainant for the completed portrait.
The opposite party is ready to deliver the product to the complainant on payment of balance amount of Rs.3,850/-. The opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
4. Complainant filed chief affidavit and Exhibit A1 to A3 marked. The opposite party also filed proof affidavit. No documents were marked from their side. Evidence closed. Opposite party filed notes of argument and both parties heard.
5. Main points for consideration
(1).Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
(2).If so, what is the relief as to cost and compensation?
Points 1 & 2
6. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant and his family took a family photo in their studio. As per the complainant’s contention, based on the opposite party’s advice they took a family photograph in replacement of the broken gift item and they were compelled to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards advance for 24” X 20” size photograph with frame for which the total cost was Rs.6,900/-. But later on, when he enquired about the price for the same in market, the amount charged by the opposite party was found to be too high and so he informed the opposite party that they want only 9” X 6” size print out which the opposite party accepted and agreed to refund the balance amount . Accordingly he visited the opposite party’s shop many times and finally on 26/10/2018, the opposite party delivered 9” X 6” print out without refunding the balance amount. He filed this complaint for getting the balance amount and compensation from the opposite party.
7. The opposite party’s contention in this regard is that he spent 3 hrs in taking the complainant’s family portrait and finally with great effort, he completed the product and the photo 24” X 20” with frame was ready for delivery and he informed the same to the complainant through telephone. At that time, the complainant informed him that they did not want the product which was ordered, instead, they wanted 9” X 6” size print out, which was not possible because the product was already finished and ready for delivery. The complainant did not take delivery of the ordered product which was finished and kept in their studio.
8. In order to substantiate his contentions, the complainant had produced three documents which are marked as Exhibit A1 to A3. Exhibit A1 is the print of 9 ” X 6” size photograph taken in the opposite party’s studio, Exhibit A2 is the cover in which the photograph was given which contains the address and details of opposite party and Exhibit A3 is the bill dated 02/10/18 issued by the opposite party to the complainant for Rs.6900/- towards the ordered product. The bill shows the particulars about the size of the photograph, the total amount for the product, amount paid towards advance and balance amount to be paid.
9. Exhibit A3 shows that, the complainant initially ordered 24” X 20” size photo with black frame for a total price of Rs.6,900/- and paid an advance amount of Rs.2,000/-. The opposite party as admitted, reduced the price Rs.650/- of the earlier purchased gift item and given an additional discount of Rs.400/- from the total amount. So the balance amount to be paid was Rs.3,850/-
10. The complainant produced the 9” X 6” size photograph given by the opposite party which is marked as Ext. A1. The opposite party had not objected the marking of the documents and they have no case that Exhibit A1 photograph is not issued from their studio. But the Opposite party had not mentioned anything about the delivery of the 9 ” X 6” size photograph . From Exhibit A1 &A2, the story of the complainant appears to be more probable, because, as per the complainant on comparing the price of the ordered product with the market price, the complainant found the price very high and on the very next day he informed the opposite party that he want only a 9” X 6” size which they agreed. After approaching the opposite party so many times, they gave the 9 ” X 6” print, but did not refund the balance amount.
11. The opposite party had contended that the complainant’s demand for the 9” X 6” size photograph could not be accepted as the large print was already ready for delivery. Even though the opposite party produced the 24” X 20” size framed photograph before the Commission, the question is whether it is completed at the time when the 9” X 6” photograph was ordered. No evidence is forthcoming. They did not take any steps to cross examine the complainant to bring out the veracity of their contention. There is total silence on the part of the opposite party with regard to the issuance of the 9”X 6” size photograph to the complainant.
12. The opposite party should have explained how the complaint got the 9” X 6” size photograph with him. They have not mentioned anywhere in their version or affidavit the circumstances under which the photograph was delivered to the complainant. Their silence casts a doubt in our minds with regard to issuance of the photograph and refund of money.
13. From the facts and circumstances of the case,no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the opposite party. Because the opposite party agreed to replace the broken gift item even though the gift purchased by the complainant was broken in his house and the opposite party is not responsible for that. Secondly, they reduced the price of the gift item from the cost of family portrait and given an additional discount of Rs.400/-. The complainant had no complainant about the services of opposite party and the quality of the product issued by them. His grievence is only with regard to the price of the photo which he found high after comparing with the market price. The complainant could have enquired about the price before agreeing with the opposite party. It is not fair on his part to go back from the agreement. For this the opposite party cannot be held liable.
14. The opposite party had delivered only the 9” X 6” size photograph instead of 24” X 20” size photo. So they are bound to refund the balance amount. Non refunding of the balance amount is an Unfair Trade Practice for which they have to compensate the complainant. The complainant has not produced any bill or receipt to show the price of the photograph delivered by the opposite party even though he claims it as Rs. 150/- per print and prayed for the refund of balance amount of Rs.2530/-.
In the result complaint is allowed in part.
1. The opposite party is directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.1750/- from the advance payment of Rs.2000/- after taking the estimated cost of 9” X 6” size photograph which we estimate to be Rs.250/-.
2. We further direct the Opposite party to pay Rs.1500/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and towards other expenses incurred by him.
Order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 21st day of February 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President.
Sd/-
Vidya.A Member
Forwarded/By Order,
Assistant Registrar
Fair copy on : 16/03/2022
Despatched on:
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Family photo print 1 copy of the complainant.
Ext.A2 - The cover obtained along with the photograph.
Ext.A3 - Receipt No.1019 issued by Rad Photo Graphy dated 02/10/2018.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
NIL
Cost: NIL
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Resolution 20(5) of the Consumer protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 falling which they will be weeded out.
