Delhi

East Delhi

CC/40/2017

PADMAJA KAUL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNNY SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

05 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 40/17

 

Ms. Padmaja Kaul

D-158, Anand Vihar

New Delhi – 110 092                                                   ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

Mr. Sunny Singh

Sole Proprietor of Sunny Digital Imaging

Off: Shop No. 3

12, Brahmputra Shopping Complex

Sector-29, Noida, UP – 201 301                             …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 02.04.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 05.09.2018

Judgement Passed on: 10.09.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Ms. Padmaja Kaul against Mr. Sunny Singh, Proprietor of Sunny Digital Imaging (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant entered into an agreement with Mr. Sunny Singh (OP) for a total consideration of Rs. 2,85,000/- on 02.11.2014 for rendering of photography, cinematography and videography services for wedding events of the complainant. 

            The complainant made a payment of Rs. 50,000/- on 02.11.2014 as per the scheduled payment plan.  The service package included all the wedding events scheduled from 06.02.2015 to 08.02.2015

The payment schedule for the same was as follows:-

Rs. 50,000/-             At the time of execution of agreement    

Rs. 1,17,500/-           Prior to the event scheduled on 06.02.2015

Rs. 1,17,500/-           After completion of all events and handing over the                                        entire data

            It was stated that OP seemed disinterested in fulfilling his obligations under the agreement.  After repeated requests, OP conducted the pre-wedding shoot only on 23.12.2014, but did not provide the data to the complainant.   

            On 03.02.2015, OP visited the residence of the complainant and demanded for the entire balance payment.  It has been further stated that OP also expressed its decision not to perform the services as the assignment was a small one for OP and left the complainant’s residence.

            OP again threatened the complainant that unless the entire consideration was paid to him on 05.02.2015, he will not carry out the promised services.  The complainant requested OP to accept the second installment of the consideration, but he refused for the same. 

            On 05.02.2015 at 22.58 hours, the complainant received an email from OP wherein he unilaterally presumed that complainant no longer wanted to avail the services of OP and further alleged that nonpayment of second installment was the purported basis for writing the said email.  This conduct of OP came as a shock to the complainant.  She had to find the substitute of OP in a short duration. 

            It was stated that OP harassed the complainant throughout the duration of the agreement, therefore, to avoid any further harassment, the complainant decided to discontinue the services and by email, terminated the agreement and called upon OP to refund the advance amount of       Rs. 50,000/- and also to provide the personal data recorded for the         pre-wedding shoot. 

            Legal notice dated 08.10.2015 was sent, which was not replied.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to refund advance payment of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith 18% interest;  deliver the personal data recorded for the pre-wedding shoot on 23.12.2014; compensation for the present claim at the value of the total consideration of Rs. 2,85,000/- alongwith 18% interest and cost of litigation.       

             The complainant has annexed copy of screenshots of the representations made by OP on his website, agreement dated 02.11.2014, copy of email dated 05.02.2015, 06.02.2015 and 26.05.2015 and copy of legal notice dated 08.10.2015 alongwith complaint.

 3.        Memo of appearance was filed on behalf of OP, but no reply was filed on their behalf despite opportunity, thus, they were proceeded          ex-parte.

4.       The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit where she has got herself examined.  She has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  She has got exhibited documents such as screenshots of the representations made by OP on his website (Annexure C-1), agreement dated 02.11.2014 (Annexure C-2), copy of telephonic messages dated 20.01.2015 exchanged between the complainant and OP (Ex. I), copy of relevant leaflets of the wedding card (Ex. II), copy of email dated 05.02.2015, 06.02.2015 and 26.05.2015 (Annexure C-3, C-4 & C-5) and copy of legal notice dated 08.10.2015 (Annexure C-6).

5.         We have perused the material placed on record and heard the submission on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant.  The complainant has stated that OP had failed to deliver services as promised where he had to cover the ceremonies of the complainant’s wedding from 6^th to 8^th February, 2015, but demanded full payment in contradiction to what was mutually agreed between them.  To support her averments, complainant has relied on Annexure C2, agreement dated 02.11.2014 and email dated 06.02.2015 as Annexure C5. 

            As OP chose not to file their reply, the averments made by the complainant have remained unrebutted.  OP deliberately did not handover the data of the pre wedding shoot of the complainant as well as did not deliver services as promised, this definitely amounts to deficiency in service.

            Further, the complainant has also placed on record the screen shots of the web page of OP, where OP has represented that services provided by them par excellence, thereby inducing the complainant to opt for their services.

            Thus, from above discussion, we hold OP not only deficient in providing services but also of unfair trade practice.  Hence, we direct OP to refund Rs. 50,000/-, the amount advanced by the complainant alongwith 6% interest from the date of filing of complaint.  we also award Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as OP deprived the complainant from cherishing the once in a lifetime moments of her          pre-wedding shoot.  This shall be inclusive of litigation expenses.  OP is further directed to return the entire data of pre-wedding shoot conducted by them to the complainant.

            This order be complied within a period of 30 days, if not complied, the total awarded amount of Rs. 65,000/- shall carry 6% interest from the date of order till realisation.     

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

        President