BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GANGTOK, SIKKIM
DATED: 09.08.2024
CONSUMER CASE NO. 10 OF 2024
Dr. Nikhil Muduli,
Son of Ishwar Chandra Muduli,
Resident of C-501 Staff Quarter, Sikkim Manipal University,
5th mile, Tadong, Gangtok, Sikkim. ... COMPLAINANT
Versus
Shri Y. John Mohan,
Resident of B-608, Raja Rani Apartment,
Andhapasara Road Square, Gosaninuagaon,
Brahmapur, Ganjam, Odhisha. .… RESPONDENT
Complainant in person.
For the respondent: Ex-parte.
CORAM:
1. K.W.Bhutia, President
2. D.T. Bhutia, Member
Per: K.W.Bhutia, President
O R D E R
By this complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the complainant seeks compensation from the respondents for deficiency in services.
2. Briefly stated, the complainant’s case is that he had engaged the services of respondent, a photographer to take his wedding photographs on 05.12.2022 and at the reception held on 11.12.2022. This was at his native home in Brahmapur, Odisha. That, the respondent charged a sum of ₹ 40,000 for the services which included providing the wedding photographs along with photo album and video CD.
3. It is the complainant’s case that he paid to the respondent a sum of ₹ 20,000 in cash as advance payment on 26.10.2022. Again on 11.12.2022, the complainant paid a sum of ₹ 18,000 on an understanding that the photographs would be delivered to him promptly. The due amount payable to the respondent was ₹ 2,000. However, the respondent failed to provide the services as agreed. In fact, the respondent neither delivered the wedding photographs or photo album, nor did he supply the video CD. That, the respondent has been citing some reason or the other for non-delivery of the said photographs and lately, he has stopped responding to the call made by the complainant.
4. The complainant would allege that there is deficiency of services on the part of the respondent and therefore, prays for the following relief:-
(i) reimbursement of photography cost of ₹ 38,000;
(ii) compensation of ₹ 80,000 for deficiency of service and mental harassment; and
(iii) cost of litigation @ ₹ 15,000.
5. The respondent did not appear despite receiving summons sent by post, email and WhatsApp. After providing sufficient time and opportunity, the matter proceeded ex-parte.
6. ISSUE FRAMED:
(1) Whether the complainant has paid a sum of ₹ 38,000 to the respondent as consideration for delivery of his wedding photographs and video? If so, whether the respondent has failed to provide photography services?
(2) Whether there is deficiency of services on the part of the respondent? and
(3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed?
7. Issue no. (1) Whether the complainant has paid a sum of ₹ 38,000 to the respondent as consideration for delivery of his wedding photographs and video? If so, whether the respondent has failed to provide photography services?
8. The evidence of the complainant (Exhibit-12) would show that he had engaged the respondent to take his wedding photographs on 05.12.2022 and the photographs during the wedding reception on 11.12.2022. A hand-written receipt (Exhibit-1) would show that on 26.10.2022, a sum of ₹ 20,000 was paid by the complainant as advance for the said services. On 11.12.2022, additional sum of ₹ 18,000 was paid to the respondent – the total being ₹ 38,000. The screen-shot of WhatsApp conversation of February-March, 2024 between the complainant and respondent (Exhibit-2 and 3) would support the case of the complainant that he had sought for the wedding photographs. The screen-shot of call logs from January to March 2024 (Exhibit-5 to 9) of calls between the complainant and respondent would show the communication between them. Further, the screen-shot of WhatsApp page of mobile no. 9777717509 (Exhibit-4) would show that legal notice 30.03.2024 (Exhibit-10) was delivered to the respondent on 05.04.2024. The consignment tracking page of India Post (Exhibit-11) would show that the legal notice was delivered to the respondent on 06.04.2024.
9. The utter silence of respondent despite having notice of the present complaint goes to show that he is not concerned with the outcome of this matter and would also indicate at his guilt. We do not know the reason for non-delivery of wedding photographs to the complainant despite passage of more than 20 months. However, it is apparent that the respondent has not acted in a professional manner despite receiving payment for his services.
10. Hence, the question whether the complainant paid a sum of ₹ 38,000 to the respondent as consideration for delivery of his wedding photographs and video and whether the respondent has failed to provide photography services is answered in affirmative.
11. Issue no. (2) Whether there is deficiency of services on the part of the respondent?
12. Wedding day is an important day in a married couple’s life and it is every couple’s wish to have best photographs of their wedding as memories for their future. In the present case, the complainant’s wedding seems to be incomplete in the absence of the photographs. When a professional is paid for their services, it is expected that proper and prompt service is delivered to a customer.
13. When the respondent has failed to deliver the said photographs with video CD despite passage of more than twenty months, it shows deficiency in his service. Hence, issue no. 2 is answered in affirmative.
14. Issue no. (3) In view of the discussions made above, we hold that the complainant is entitled to the following relief:-
(i) The respondent shall hand over to complainant the entire photographs of his wedding day dated 05.12.2022 and reception dated 11.12.2022 in a photo album along with video CD;
(ii) The respondent shall pay to complainant a sum of ₹ 50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for mental harassment and deficiency of services;
(iii) The respondent shall also pay to complainant a sum of ₹ 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as cost of litigation; and
(iv) The above-mentioned total amount of ₹ 65,000 (Rupees Sixty-Five Thousand only) shall carry simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint (i.e. 09.05.2024) until full realization.
(D.T. Bhutia) (K.W.Bhutia)
Member President
WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
1. Dr. Nikhil Muduli - CW-1.
WITNESSES EXAMINED BY RESPONDENT: NIL
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
1. Exhibit 1 - Copy of bill payment.
2. Exhibit 2 - Screenshot of whatsapp conversation.
3. Exhibit 3 - -do-
4. Exhibit 4 - -do-
5. Exhibit 5 - Screenshot of call logs.
6. Exhibit 6 - -do-
7. Exhibit 7 - -do-
8. Exhibit 8 - -do-
9. Exhibit 9 - -do-
10. Exhibit 10(a) - Copy of legal notice.
11. Exhibit 10(b) - -do-
12. Exhibit 11 - Delivery tracking.
13. Exhibit 12 - Evidence-on-affidavit of CW-1.
14. Exhibit13 - Certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY RESPONDENT: NIL
(D.T. Bhutia) (K.W.Bhutia)
Member President
