BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 6^th day of December 2021

                             Filed on: 10/09/2018

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                        Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                               Member

CC.No.375/2018

COMPLAINANTS/PETITIONERS

1. Jathin Sasi, No.27/32, Flat No.103, 3^rd  Cross, Venkatesvara layout,  Bangalore –

    560 029.

2. Chanchal Ratnaraj Rithima, W/o.Jathin Sasi, No.27/32, Flat No.103, 3^rd  Cross,

    Venkatesvara layout, Bangalore – 560 029.

(Rep. by Advs.Aginov Mathappan & Sherin Mohan.K, Manchu Complex,

  P.T.Usha Road, Kochi – 11.)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. M/s.Weva Photography, 1^st Floor, KC Tower Road, Near Oberon Mall, Padivattom,

    Edappally, Kochi – 682 024.

2. Sineesh Gopal, Managing Director, R M/s.Weva Photography, 1^st Floor, KC Tower

    Road, Near Oberon Mall, Padivattom, Edappally, Kochi – 682 024.

3. Rohith Raghuvaran, Director, R M/s.Weva Photography, 1^st Floor, KC Tower Road,

    Near Oberon Mall, Padivattom, Edappally, Kochi – 682 024.

                                                                  O R D E R

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Brief facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainants are husband and wife and they got married on 15^th January 2016. Prior to the marriage the complainants were in search of good photographers/ videographers to cover their entire wedding functions from both sides.  Impressed by the opposite parties face book page and YouTube promotion activities the complainants approached the opposite parties through E-mail and showed their interest.  Later the 1^st complainant discussed their requirements with the opposite parties customer service.  Later they decided to book the opposite party 1 to cover the entire wedding and pre-wedding function of both bride and groom as it appeared to be reasonably good and on request of the Customer Relation Manager, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the opposite party on 28/07/2016 via online transfer to book the dates.  On receipt of the booking amount an E-mail was sent to the 1^st complainant by the opposite party with a customer enquiry form, the estimate and payment schedule along with the terms and conditions.  The total estimate for the wedding, pre-wedding function was fixed for Rs.1,50,000/-.  An amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid to one Mr.Sajith who was the photographer of the event.  Before the wedding day, the complainants had given instruction to the videographer and photographers regarding their requirements.  The event was covered without any interruption.  After the wedding event the opposite parties staff informed complainant No.1 that they will send the sorted pictures for selection to the complainants the next day.  But even after five days there was no reply or any other communication from the opposite party.  The complainants waited for a month, but there was no reply.  The complainants were totally in a dilemma as they couldn’t even register their marriage due to unavailability of any photographs to present before the authorities as a proof of marriage.  The complainants made several phone calls to the opposite party. The complainants were mentally upset as they did not get the respective video and photo of their wedding event after 7 months.  After a great struggle, arguments over phone, several visits made by the friends and relatives to opposite parties office, 9 months after the marriage, the complainants got to see the teaser of the video.  The complainants were shocked to see a below average/ordinary teaser.  The date of the wedding was wrongly shown as 27^th January instead of 15^th January 2016.  Thereafter on 11^th October 2017, the complainants received two Dvd- videos and photographs along with 2 framed photos of their wedding on a Sanitary Napkin cartoon box.  Most of scenes which were instructed by them were not seen captured and the video editing was below average.  The framed photographs were defective.  There were white patches in the bride’s neck on all of the framed photos.  None of the photos were edited properly.  The opposite parties agreed that all these things were happened due to the mistake of their technical side.  The opposite parties also mentioned that they are ready to waiver the balance amount as the fault is on their part.  Then the complainant asked for the raw files, opposite party promised to send it via courier but till June 2018 the opposite parties did not send any courier.  Later the complainant contacted the opposite party 2, the Managing Director of Weva, and he promised that he will send the raw files next working day.  The complainant gave it to another friend for fresh editing.  The friend of the complainant, a computer expert informed the complainant that the raw files send by the 2^nd opposite party is a corrupted one and he was not able to open the files in it.  The 2^nd complainant was not able to join her job in Australia due to the delay in submitting the marriage certificate on time as she availed leave on the ground that she is getting married.  The complainants alleges that the opposite party is indulging on evasive, protractive and dilatory tactics causing much loss, injury and harassment to the complainants.  The opposite parties has failed and neglected to honour their promises, commitment and assurances.  Thereafter much loss, injury and mental agony caused to the complainants on account of the negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  For all these reasons the complainants approached before the Forum/Commission seeking to pass an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.1,30,000/-(Rupees One lakh Thirty thousand) with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 15/01/16 till payment,  a compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for the loss and injury suffered by the complainants on account of the deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties along with litigation charges.

(2) Notice

Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Forum/Commission on 27/01/2020. Notice sent to the opposite party 2 and opposite party 3 were served as revealed by proof of delivery of the postal department. Opposite party 1 appeared before Forum/Commission on 07/01/2020. The Commission gave direction to the opposite party 1 to file their version within 30 days.  Thereafter Opposite party 1 never appeared before the Commission nor filed their version Therefore opposite party No.1, 2 and opposite party 3 were set Ex-parte.

Evidence

        The evidence in this case consists of the ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant and documentary evidence which were marked as Exbt.A1- to A7.  No oral evidence.  Evidence closed and the case posted for hearing.

Heard.

The Issues came up for consideration this case are as follows:

(1)    Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice is proved towards the complainants by the opposite parties?

(2)      Compensation and Costs?

For the sake of convenience, we consider and issue No:2 together            

Issue No.1

            The complainants are husband and wife and they got married on 15^th January 2017.  Impressed by the work of opposite party, the complainants had booked to capture the wedding and related functions of their marriage ceremony through E-mail and had showed their interest in the work of opposite parties.  The opposite parties replied back to the enquiry made by the complainants through an E-mail dtd.23/07/2016 which is marked as Exbt.A1.  As per Exbt.A1 for booking confirmation Rs.10,000/- is seen paid by the complainant to opposite party and 80% payable after the event.  The complainant had paid the booking amount of Rs.10,000/- as evidenced by Exbt.A2.  Exbt.A3 is the copy of transaction receipt of Rs.10,000/- sent by the complainant to Weva photography is a NEFT fund transfer a/c No.915020020060333 of Axis Bank Palarivattom Branch.  The complainants  were agreed to the estimate along with the terms and conditions said in the Exbt.A1 E-mail.

Processing Period

1) Sorted pictures will be sent to the client in 5 working days after the event.

2) Client is expected to select the required pictures and revert back within 5 working

    days.

3) The album and video making process will begin in immediately after we receive the

    selected pictures from the client.

Album Making Process

1) We will be sending 2 types of album layouts to choose.  Only after the selection

    made by the client the process will be started.

2) The client will receive a pre-view of the final layout before given for printing.  Client is

     expected to review and respond for corrections within 5 working days of preview

     received.

Video making process

            Wave photography focuses on work perfection to provide complete satisfaction your review and suggestions are always valuable to us.

            The complainants submits that on the wedding day an amount of Rs.20,000/- in cash was paid to Mr.Sajith who was the photographer of the Wave photography.  Exbt.A4 is the copy of transaction receipts of Rs.50,000/- to Mr.Sajith, to his a/c No:18370100030847 of Federal Bank through Neft transfer.  Exbt.A5 is also a copy of the transaction receipt of Rs.50,000/- to Mr.Fahad.P.A a/c No:915010011534488 of Axis Bank.  The complainants submit that this made an 80% of the total amount payable to the opposite party. The balance amount was to be paid on the date of delivery of the wedding videos as per the terms in Exbt.A1.  The complainants alleges that they had received a courier packed in a Sanitary Napkin(Whisper) which was the Dvd of the wedding function.   Exbt.A6 are the defective photographs prepared by the opposite party for the complainants wedding ceremony.

            On evaluation of the evidence on record and the facts submitted by the complainant, the following points are noted;

1. The complainants wedding date was on 15^th January 2017 as revealed by Exbt.A1.
2.  As per Exbt.A2, the opposite party had received the advance payment of Rs.10,000/- to their bank a/c No. No:915010011534488 maintained at Axis Bank, Palarivattom. The opposite party had given two phone number 9995122822 (Fahad) and 9961467149(Rohith) to the complainants for further communications.
3. The complainants had paid Rs.50,000/- to one Mr.Fahad and also had paid Rs.50,000/- to Mr.Sajith, who are the staffs of the opposite party, via Neft fund transfer.
4. The complainants submits in his complaint that Rs.20,000/- in cash was paid to Mr.Sajith who was the photographer of the event.  But the complainants had not produced any evidence in this regard to that effect.
5. The date of the wedding day was wrongly shown on 27^th January instead of 15^th January.
6. The photographs prepared by the opposite parties are defective.  Whole patches can be seen on the neck portion of the bride.

It is the case of the complainants that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. On               a thoughtful evaluation, evidence, records and evaluation, we are of the opinion that opposite parties are failed and neglected to honour their promise, commitment and assurances and had committed serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainants.  The complainants had to suffer severe mental agony, pain and other hardships due to the act of the opposite party in the non-delivery of the wedding photographs within the stipulated time. 

The commission have also noticed that even after getting notice from this Forum/Commission the opposite parties never appear to contest the case by filing their version or by adducing their evidence except opposite party 1 represented and thereafter not appeared or filed the version or contest the case.  This is an act of admission from their side substantiating the allegations raised by the complainant.  On 07/01/2020 the opposite party 1 represented and the commission have given ample chance to the opposite party 1 to file their version.  Notice to opposite party 2 and opposite party 3 served but no one from the side of opposite party 2 and opposite party 3 appeared and filed version.  Consequently they were also set ex-parte.  In this situation this commission have no other way to believe the words of the complainants and we hereby allow the complaint in part and pass the following orders;

1. We hereby direct the 1^st opposite party to refund Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainants within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order; failing which the amount will carry interest @9% per annum from 15/01/2016 till payment.
2. We hereby direct the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- each to the complainant.
3. We hereby direct the opposite parties to pay cost of proceedings Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.  The liability of the opposite parties to pay litigation charges to the complainant shall be joint and several.

            The above order shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

        Pronounced in the Commission on this the 6^th day of December 2021.

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                D.B.Binu, President  

                                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                            V.Ramachandran, Member

s/

                                                                              Forwarded/by Order

Despatch date:

By hand:                                                                                Senior Superintendent

By post:         

                                                                   APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits:

Opposite party's Exhibits:         

Deposition:

NIL