Punjab

Patiala

CC/19/293

Tajinder singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sai Studio - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Umesh Kumar Ghai

15 Oct 2020

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Patiala
Patiala
 
Complaint Case No. CC/19/293
( Date of Filing : 09 Aug 2019 )
 
1. Tajinder singh
R/O Village Choura Tehsil Distt Patiala
Patiala
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sai Studio
Dwigash Road Village Behal District Patiala
Patiala
Punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. J. S. Bhinder PRESIDENT
  Sh. V K Ghulati Member
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 15 Oct 2020
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 293 of 9.8.2019

                                      Decided on:    15.10.2020

 

Tejinder Singh son of Sh.Harpal Singh R/o Village Chaura Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

  1. Sai Studio, Devigarh Road, Villate Behal, District Patiala through its partners Gaurav and Sonu.
  2. Gaurav , Sai Studio,Devigarh Road, Village Behal, District Patiala.
  3. Sonu, Sai Studio, Devigarh Road, Village Behal, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.U.K.Ghai,counsel for complainant.

                                      OPs ex-parte.                                   

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

  1. This is the complaint filed by Tejinder Singh    (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Sai Studio and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
  2. The brief facts of the case  are that on 26.9.2018, the complainant contacted OPs for the photography and videography of his marriage function and entered into a contract with them  with the following terms:
  1. Pre wedding videography @ Rs.2000/- all inclusive
  2. 300 photographs of marriage functions and 3 hours of video film for Rs.17000/- all inclusive (In 32 GB Pen drive)
  3. Extra shooting of video film above 3 hours @ Rs.2500/- per hour inclusive
  1. It is averred that booking hours were from 17.11.2018 7AM upto 18.11.2018 upto conclusion of the functions including functions at the house of the complainant, at the place of marriage where the marriage party had to go at Bride’s place, at the place of complainant after the return of marriage party upto the conclusion of the functions and ceremonies.
  2. It is further averred that after fixing all the terms and conditions between the parties, the complainant paid Rs.1000/- as booking amount in token of which no receipt was issued by the OPs.
  3. It is averred that as per contract, the OPs photographed and videographed the whole functions of marriage of the complainant and prepared 300 photographs and video film of 5 hours of the whole function. It is further averred that the complainant paid Rs.2000/- for pre wedding video, Rs.17000/- for 300 photographs and 3 hours video and Rs.5000/- have been paid for extra 2 hours video @ Rs.2500/- per hour. In this way the complainant had paid Rs.24000/- in total to the OPs. The OPs handed over 300 photographs and 5 hours video film in 32 GB Pen drive to the complainant. On demand no bill or receipt was issued by the OPs to the complainant.
  4. It is averred that when the complainant played the video, it did not run properly and froze and hung in between at many places. The complainant immediately approached the OP and brought the problem in their notice. On their asking the complainant handed over the video film to them for rectifying the defect. After some days the OPs called the complainant and handed over the video film to him stating that the problem has been solved. But when the complainant played the video, it did not run properly and the problem was still existing .He again called the OPs about the problem existing in the video film. For resolving the problem the OPs demanded more money for  which the complainant denied .At this the OPs flatly refused to solve the problem. Due to this act of the OPs the complainant is suffering from mental tension and agony and he has the great emotional value of his marriage function being a lifetime event. A legal notice dated 2.7.2019 was also got served upon the OPs for resolving the technical problem but the OPs did not give any reply to the same. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer for directing the OPs to correct and repair the video film of marriage function of the complainant in all respects; to issue the bill and receipt for the photography and videography; to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, malpractice and unfair trade practice and also to pay Rs.15000/- as the costs of litigation.
  5. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs but they refused to accept the same and the OPs were accordingly proceeded against exparte.
  6. In the ex-parte evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of booking slip, Ex.C1, original pen drive, Ex.C2, copy of legal notice, Ex.C3 and postal receipts, Exs.C4 to C6 and closed the evidence.
  7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
  8. The main grouse of the complainant is that the OPs were engaged for his marriage function and paid Rs.2000/- for pre wedding video, Rs.17000/- for 300 photographs and 3 hours video and Rs.5000/- have been paid for extra 2 hours video @ Rs.2500/- per hour. In this way the complainant had paid Rs.24000/- in total to the OPs.
  9. It is averred that when the complainant played the video film, there were some technical problem and the same was not running properly. The OPs tried to rectify the problem but they failed to do so.
  10. As it was the duty of the OPs to provide correct video film but they did not do so. As such the complaint stands allowed and the OPs are directed to remove the technical problem occurred in the video film of the marriage function of the complainant. They are also directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses and compensation of Rs.5000/-each.   

Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:15.10.2020     

                                       Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                Member                                     President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. J. S. Bhinder]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Sh. V K Ghulati]
Member
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.