District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.653/2023.

 Date of Institution:05.10.2023.

Date of Order: 30,05.2024.

Pankul Bharti son of Shri Ved Parkash, resident of House No.13, Villae Daultabad, Sector-16, Faridabad.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

Star Eye Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., H-193,H Block, Sector-63, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201301, U.P through  its Directors/authorized person.

                                                                   …Opposite party……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh. Narender Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

OP ex-parte vide order 21.03.2024.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had made brand shoot for his son namely Ryan Bharti for Amazon on 01.01.2023.  Opposite party charged Rs.1999/- from the complainant vide invoice No. NO110202775. On 15.01.2023 opposite party called the complainant for taking Standard Package Portfolio.  Opposite party told the complainant that the opposite  party would shoot the son of the complainant for different brands every months and demand Rs.25,000/- from the complainant.  The complainant paid Rs.25,000/- to opposite party vide invoice No. NO110202903 dated 25.01.2023 for Standard Package Portfolio.    The opposite party done one time brand shoot of son of the complainant for Flipcart and after that opposite party had failed to brand shoot the son of the complainant for different brands every month.  The complainant requested the opposite party so many times to brand shoot the son of the complainant every month for different brands.  Opposite party assured the complainant that opposite party wlil inform the complainant to brand shoot the son of the complainant but till date opposite party had not done brand shoot the son of the complainant for different brands.  Now opposite party was not picking the mobile phone of the complainant.  The complainant sent a legal notice dated 18.09.2023 but all in vain..  The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:

a)                refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- which was paid by the complainant to the complainant to the opposite party for Standard Package Portfolio.

 b)                pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                 Registered notice  issued to opposite party not received back either served or unserved.   Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that “Item Delivery Confirmed”.  Mandatory period of 30 days expired.  Hence, opposite party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.03.2024.

3.                The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.

4                  We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– Star Eye Media and Entertainment  with the prayer to: a)  refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- which was paid by the complainant to the complainant to the opposite party for Standard Package Portfolio.  b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c)  pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case, the complainant  has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Pankul Bharti, Ex.C-1 – invoice dated 25.01.2023, Ex.C-2 – legal notice, Ex.C-3 – postal receipt,

 6.               There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite party has rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite party.

7.                Opposite party is directed to refund the amount  of Rs.25,000/- which was paid by the complainant to the opposite party for Standard Package Portfolio.   Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.3300/- as compensation for causing mental agony  & harassment alongwith  Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.    Compliance of this order  be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost.   File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on:  30.05.2024                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                                                          (Indira Bhadana)

     Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                Redressal Commission, Faridabad.