Date of Filing: 23.12.2020

Date of Judgment: 12.08.2022  

Mrs.  Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble  President

This complaint is filed by the complainants, Sri Indar Kumar Agarwal and Sri Pratik Agarwal  under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 against the Opposite party namely Rohit Thakur (referred to as O.P), alleging deficiency in service on his   part.

                The case of the complainants in short is that O.P has been running a business under the name and style of Rohit Photography ( Wedding and Protrait Photography) . Complainants were looking out for photographers for covering wedding ceremony of the complainant no.2. So, they met the O.P who assured the complainant of providing the best service showing his previous works. Complainants accepted the package of price of Rs. 1,60,000/- out of which 50% was to be paid in advance and 25% on wedding day and remaining 25% was to be paid on the date of delivery of the photograph and the videos with additional Rs. 10,000/- on the best of quality of the work delivered. So, advance of Rs. 25000/- was paid on 14.7.2016 and thereafter further sum has been paid on 24.7.2016, 16.8.2016, 8.12.2016 and 9.5.2017. So, a total sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- has been paid. But the O.P inspite of repeated requests since January, 2017 has not delivered photo album, edited photos and videos and thus present complaint has been filed by the complainants praying for directing the O.P to deliver the wedding photo album, edited photos and videos as per package deal , in default to refund the amount paid by the complainant of Rs. 1,40,000/- , to pay compensation of Rs. 3 lac and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-. 

                On perusal of the record it appears that inspite of service of notice no step was taken by the O.P and thus the case has been heard exparte.

                So, the only point requires determination is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

                In support of their claim that they had availed the service of the O.P for the purpose of providing photo album, edited photos and videos of wedding of the complainant no.2, complainants have filed the package and the quotation issued by the O.P and have also filed the bank statement as well as the money receipts, wherefrom it appears that an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- has been paid by the complainants. Complainants have not filed any document to show the payment of Rs. 10,000/- as claimed by them on 16.8.2016. However, since before this Commission no contrary material is forth coming to counter and rebut the claim of the complainant about the payment of total sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-, complainants are entitled to refund of the said sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- as prayed by them, especially when the whatsapp chat, the scan copy which has been filed,  before this Commission by the complainants, do not reflect anything from the side of the O.P claiming non-payment of amounts  by the complainants  being the reason for non-delivery of the said photo album , edited photos and videos.

                In such a situation, the complainants are entitled to the relief as prayed for, directing the O.Ps to deliver the wedding photo album, edited photos and videos, in alternatively OP shall refund the sum paid by the complainants. Complainants are also entitled to compensation of Rs. 35,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

Hence,

               ORDERED

That CC/354/2020 is allowed exparte.
O.P is directed to hand over the wedding photo album , edited photos and videos as per the package deal entered into between the parties within 2 months from this date, in default O.P is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- paid by the complainants within the aforesaid period of 2 months from this date.

O.P is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 35,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainants within the aforesaid period of 2 months.