By  Smt. Beena. M,  President (In charge):

          This  is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The marriage of the Complainant was solemnized on 15/01/2017 at bride’s house.  The Complainant entrusted the Opposite Party to take videos of his marriage, the function on the previous day and  the reception held on 16/01/2017 at CDC Auditorium Chettappalam for Rs. 20,000/-, towards which the Complainant paid Rs.15,000/- as advance.  As agreed the Opposite Party covered marriage function, function on the previous day, reception and outdoor

videos at Kolottukunnu, Wayanad, but not handed over the video cassettes to the Complainant till date.  After the marriage, the Complainant and his wife contacted the Opposite party directly and through phone to see the video of the marriage and to take out door videos, but the Opposite Party said lame excuses on one pretext or the other.  Thereafter, as per the direction of the Opposite Party, the Complainant and his wife  went twice to Calicut, but the Opposite Party did not came there to take outdoor videos, and so they returned to home.  The Opposite Party agreed to handover the video cassette after the completion of outdoor video.  But the Opposite Party failed to hand over the same.  Then the Complainant gave a complaint to the Pulpally Police station, but the Opposite Party was not ready to give the video cassette or pen drive.  The Opposite Party had committed serious service deficiency and latches.  The Complainant had suffered huge loss and difficulties.  Hence, the Complainant filed the above number Complaint.

          3. After the admission of the Complaint, the Commission issued summons to the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party filed version and contested the case.  It is admitted by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had entrusted to take videos of his marriage function and received Rs.15,000/- as part of the payment. Other allegations stated in the Complaint are denied by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party further admitted that he could not handover the CD and it was not intentional or purposefully. After editing of the videos, the Opposite Party entrusted  Suvarna Media Production for making CD, but at the time of editing all the videos were lost due to the virus from their computer.  Thereafter, the Opposite Party asked to retrieve the data, so they sent the hard disk to Madras to retrieve the lost videos but could not succeed.  The Opposite Party contented that the Suverna Media production is a necessary party in this case as it happened out of the control of the Opposite Party.  So the Complainant is not liable to get any compensation. Hence the Opposite Party prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint. 

4. On perusal of Complaint and documents, the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the Suverna Media Production is a necessary party to the complaint?
3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?

5.  Point No. 1 to 3:- For the sake of convenience and brevity all the points are considered together.

          6. The Complainant had adduced oral evidence and he was examined as PW1.  No oral or documentary evidence were adduced from the part of the Opposite Party.

           7. On going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that as per the Complainant, he hired the services of Opposite Party as a photographer for the purpose of taking videos of marriage function and related functions, which were scheduled on 14/07/2017,15/07/2017 and 16/07/2017. The Complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the Opposite Party as advance.  It is pertinent to note that the Opposite Party has no dispute regarding the allegation of non delivery of the CD and payment of Rs.15,000/-.  But the only dispute he raised was that the videos were lost at the hand of Suvarna Media Production and it was out of his control.  This argument is not tenable and the Opposite Party can not simply wash his hands by saying this kind of arguments.  It is the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to protect the data safely.  The Complainant has no privity of contract with Suverna Media Production. So,  Suverna Media Production is not a necessary party to this Complaint.  If the data were lost from them as said by the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party can seek remedy from Suverna Media Production. There is no material available to conclude that as to the data lost matter. The Opposite Party failed to produce any document or witness to prove his case that the data was lost from Suvarna Media Production.  

          8. Here the ceremonies like wedding comes once in the life of a person and every person has some dreams about celebrations and everyone wants to make it memorable. Not getting the photographs and videos of wedding ceremony of the Complainant even after spending an amount of Rs. 15,000/-, he suffered mental harassment and humiliation.  As such there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and is liable to compensate the Complainant.  Though the damage and loss suffered by the Complainant cannot be assessed in terms of money, but we assess it by refunding the amount paid by the Complainant along with interest and compensation.  

           In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the Complaint and  

1. The Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with  8% interest to the Complainant.
2. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- ((Rupees One Lakh only) to the Complainant as compensation.

           The above order must be complied within 30 days from the date of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum for the above amount from the date of this order till realization of the amount.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 8^th day of December 2022.

          Date of filing:11.01.2019.

                                                                   PRESIDENT (I/C):  Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER             : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1.           Neethulkumar. K. N.                  Complainant.        

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.   

Exhibits for the complainant:

Nil.   

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

                                                                                                                PRESIDENT (I/C):  Sd/-

                                                                                                                MEMBER             : Sd/-