The fact of the case in Brief :- The Complainant is a woman, whose brother is married on 14.12.2014 has approached the O.P. for Video Shooting of her brother’s marriage held on 11.12.2014 to 17.12.2014 in the residence of the complainant at uapada. The O.P. has promised to take Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for the total video shooting of the marriage ceremony and the O.P. took Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) only as advance payment for the occasion. The marriage ceremony was held accordingly to the programme schedule.
The O.P. Videographer has shoot all of important event of the marriage ceremony except the Barat Procession on 14.12.2014 which was not seen in the DVD which is an important event for the complainant’s friends and relatives in life as they could not remembers in future about the marriage ceremony.
On dated 02.03.2015 three numbers of DVD has been delivered to the complainant by the O.P., where it is found that, no event of procession of Barat of her brother’s Akshya held on dated 14.12.2014.
The Barat is an important event in a marriage ceremony without this video shooting the video shooting is incomplete, such event never comes again in life and never be recovered at any cost. The complainant being the sister of the Bridegroom Akshya has taken sole responsibility of video shooting of important events of the entire marriage ceremony.
The O.P. being the Service Provider of video shooting of the marriage ceremony of the brother of the complainant he has not provide proper service by supplying incomplete video DVD cassette which was the deficiency in service the complainant relied on document of 3 DVD copy original and claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only for the deficiency in service alongwith litigation cost and interest.
The O.P. has appeared before the Forum with his counsel on dated 16.06.2015 denied all the allegation of the complainant in the complaint petition even he denied as not a videographer rather a video journalist of Focus Odisha and does not know the complainant and any such event has not happened against him and not a service provider for provide any kind of service to the complainant for video shooting. The O.P. has not filed as per version the complainant is completely unknown to the O.P. who filed complain petition against the O.P. with all the vague allegations.
ISSUES.
- Whether the O.P. is a Videographer or not ?
- If he is a videographer than what will be the consequence of the facts, and what remedy will get the petitioner ?
Issue No. 1:-
We take the Issues No. 1 we have gone through the record and heard the argument of both the parties and found that the O.P. received the notice in the name of mentioned in cause title of the petition, if he is not party or proprietor of Choice Photo Studio then why he is received the notice so he proves himself that, he is the O.P. in this case again we found from the M.O. which is produced by the petitioner alongwith petition. The procession of Barat is not there. It is incomplete of video shooting due to such deficient.
Issue No. 2:-
The O.P. has reflected his name and logo for video shooting address in the Video C.D. in M.O. 1. Hence he is liable to penalized in the case as he has not provide proper service to the complainant, never be comply or compensate the events in future. Hence due to deficiency in service he is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only.
O R D E R.
It is therefore order that the Opposite party has to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only towards deficiency in service and litigation cost Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 45 (forty five) days from the date of received of judgement by Opposite party, failing which 9% per annum interest will be calculated from the date of filing of this case.
Judgement pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 8th day of March 2016.
