Delhi

North

RBT/CC/176/2022

KUMUD JAGIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UDIT LOHANI - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jul 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

RBT/CC No.:176/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Mrs. Kumud Jagia

D/o Sh. Rattan Kumar Jagia,

18007, B-Block, 16^th Avenue,

Gaur City-2, Greater Noida West.                 …                          Complainant

 

Vs

 

Mr. Udit Lohani

C/o Sh. Ghan Shyam Lohani,

G-9/62, Sector-15, Rohini,

Delhi-110089.                                               …                          Opposite Party

 

ORDER

15/07/2024

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       The Complainant had filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before Hon’ble DCDRC-V Shalimar Bagh where it was assigned the Consumer Complaint No.148/2018. It was further transferred to this Commission by the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide its order dated No.F.1/SCDRC/Admn/Transfer/2022/330 dated 16.04.2022 and accordingly, this complaint was registered as RBT/CC No.176/2022.

 

2.       The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that:-

1. The Opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “OP”) is a professional photographer and takes up projects of professional photography and creation of photo albums, photo shoots, etc. for various occasions, such as wedding photography and albums.
2. Through some contact, the Opposite Party got to know that the Complainant was about to get married and approached her, offering his services as a professional photographer. The Opposite Party assured her that he is a skilled photographer and has in the past, taken up various projects and executed them successfully. Amongst other things, OP also assured her of timely delivery of various services and products, such as photo albums and video albums of the wedding, reception, engagement and other allied ceremonies. Being constantly engaged in wedding preparations and being assured of such timely and skilled products, the Complainant chose to believe the OP and entrusted him with the delivery of various services and products, as mentioned above.
3. In the last week of November, the OP asked the Complainant that they will visit that venue of wedding and Reception once, which was:

1. Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha, C-Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018: for wedding
2. Grand rose, A-1/23. Main Najafgarh Road, Janakpuri for reception.

Also, soon before the ceremony days, the OP demanded that his fees to the tune of Rs.60,000/- be paid in full and in advance. Though this was contrary to industry practices, the Complainant, on or about 1^st December, 2015 paid to the OP Rs.50,000/- out of the entire fees of Rs.60,000/- in presence of other persons as witness to the said transaction. The said transaction took place at the venue of the reception, as mentioned above. At the same instance, it was asked from the OP as to when all the finished and polished photo albums and videos would be delivered, to which his answer was, latest by March 1, 2016. The Complainant has also annexed a copy of the affidavits given by the persons who witnessed the abovementioned transaction with the complaint as Annexure C-1 (colly).

4. Complainant’s wedding and reception took place on 12^th December, 2015, and the OP came to the wedding to shoot videos and pictures. A copy of the Complainant's wedding card has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure C-2. On that day as well, the OP assured the Complainant of timely delivery of photos, videos and all the products. However, on the wedding day itself, the OP demanded that his remaining fees of Rs.10,000/- be also paid in order to get timely delivery of pictures. This put the Complainant in a very tough spot and borderlined on blackmailing. Having left with no choice but to accede to demands of the OP, the Complainant, through her brother, paid to the OP the demanded amount of Rs. 10,000/- as well. The said fee was paid at the venue of the wedding. The Complainant has annexed a copy of the affidavits given by the persons who witnessed the abovementioned transaction with the complaint as Annexure C-3(colly.).
5. Since that day onwards, the OP has been delaying the delivery of the assured product and now he has completely failed to do so. On or about 19^th December, 2015, the OP gave to the Complainant, some raw pictures of the Wedding, and inquired as to what all photos were to be added in the album. Two weeks thereafter, i.e. on or about 3rd January, 2016, the Complainant gave to the OP a list of all the pictures to be added in the album. However, the OP has failed to hold up his end of the deal and it seems, now, he don't even intend to deliver the products. Since that day onwards, there has been no compliance from OP's end and he has not delivered any product or service as was promised to the Complainant.

 

3.       It has further been alleged that all along OP's intentions were to dupe the Complainant and the OP never intended to complete the undertaken project of the Complainant. OP's sole intention was to extract money from the Complainant and create a facade of conducting a legal transaction. Therefore, as a matter of last resort, the Complainant sent a legal notice to the OP on 19th January, 2018, against which no reply has been received. A copy of the said legal notice, along with a copy of its speed post receipt has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure C-4 (colly.).

 

4.       The acts and omissions of the Opposite Party have resulted into unfair trade practices and restrictive trade practices, The services hired by the Complainant suffered from deficiency and the Opposite Party being a service provider has charged for the services within the meaning of Section 2(c), Section 2(g) and Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.       It has therefore, been prayed before this Commission to pass the following order:

1. Direct the Opposite Party to Pay back Rs. 60,000/- alongwith 18% from 1st December, 2015, which was paid to him by the Complainant.
2. Direct the Opposite Party to Pay Rs. 500,000/- on account of mental trauma and harassment caused to the Complainant for constant delay/refusal to deliver the products.
3. Direct the Opposite Party to Pay Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of legal fees.
4. Pass such other order or orders as this Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case
5. Order the Opposite party to return all the photos, albums and videos as promised.

 

5.       Accordingly, notice was issued to the OP to defend the complaint before the commission but the OP neither appeared nor did send any communication despite service of the notice. Since the OP, has chosen not to contest the allegations levelled in the complaint despite service, therefore, has been proceeded Ex-parte the allegations made by the Complainant have remained un-rebutted.

6.       During the proceedings, it was observed that, the complainant has filed affidavits of Ms. Payal Jain, Sh. Anshu Kaul, Smt. Ankita Chhabra and Sh. Himanshu Jain for proving the payment made to the OP. We therefore considered appropriate to issue notice to all these deponents namely Ms. Payal Jain, Sh. Anshu Kaul, Smt. Ankita Chhabra and Sh. Himanshu Jain to establish the consumer-service provider relationship and also for judicious adjudication of the dispute.

7.       In response, Ms. Anshu Kaul and Sh. Himanshu Jain has appeared in terms of the notice issued by this commission. Notice sent to Ms. Payal Jain has been received back unserved. Notice issued to Ms. Ankita Chhabra and Sh. Udit Lohani has not been received back, however, they have also not appeared before the Commission. However, Ms. Anshu Kaul and Sh. Himanshu Jain confirmed the statements given on oath which were considered sufficient to establish the consumer-service provider relationship between the complainant and OP.

8.       The complainant has filed evidence by way of Affidavit. Therefore, the complaint has been examined on the basis of the documents/evidences and material available on records. Since the OP has chosen not to contest the allegations levelled in the complaint despite service, it is considered as deemed acceptance of the allegations of deficiency of service and harassment to the complainant by the OP. However, the material available on the record is sufficient to corroborate that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficient service on the part of the OP  in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer. Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP to:-

1. Pay back Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only)  to the complainant within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 12.12.2015 (the date of final payment to the OP) till the date of the payment.
2. Handover all the photos, albums and videos to the complainant as promised, within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which additional Rs.60000/- shall be paid to the complainant as a cost;
3. pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental  pain, agony and harassment caused.

9.       It is clarified that the aforesaid amount shall be paid by the OP, jointly and severally, within 30 days as directed above at para (i), (ii) & (iii). In case, the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum on the entire awarded amount from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

10.     Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                              HARPREET KAUR CHARYA

                 Member                                                                                        Member       

   DCDRC-1 (North)                                                                            DCDRC-1 (North)

 

               DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

               President 

DCDRC-1 (North)