CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO. 319 OF 1999 Date of filing : 16/02/1999

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 1076 OF 1993 Date of order : 21/03/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : PUNE



Smt.Sharda Ranjit Palkar

R/at 383, Shukrawar Peth,

Opp. Phat Gate Police Chowky,

Pune – 411 002. … Appellant/org. complainant

V/s.

1. M/s.Sisode Photo Studio

1058, Budhwar Peth,

Pune – 411 002.

2. Shri Charudatta Pundalikrao Sisode

R/at 6, Jedhe Nagar, Bibwewadi,

Pune – 411 037. … Respondents/org. O.Ps.


Corum : Justice Mr.B.B. Vagyani, Hon’ble President
Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member

Present: Mr.Sandeep M. Phatak, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondents.

- : ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member

This appeal arise out of order/award dated 12/01/1999 passed in consumer complaint No.1076/1993 Smt.Sharda Ranjit Palkar V/s. M/s.Sisode Photo Studio & Another by District Consumer Forum Pune (Forum below in short). The complaint stood dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred by org. complainant.

Undisputed facts are that services of O.Ps. were taken to do video shooting to cover marriage of complainant’s daughter celebrated on 29/12/1991 at Miraj. Video shooting was carried out. It is the grievance of the complainant that in spite of receiving full payment of Rs.1,700/-, O.Ps. failed to hand over the recorded video cassette to her and therefore, she had filed consumer complaint.

According to O.P. he had received Rs.1,000/- as advance on 22/12/1991. He had carried out his job and handed over the cassette to the complainant on 31/01/1992 after receiving balance payment of Rs.700/-. He had made an entry thereof in his diary and also acknowledged the receipt on the original receipt issued to the complainant. However, after seeing cassette, son-in-law of the complainant wanted complete change of dubbing songs to which he did not agree and therefore, this false consumer complaint is filed.

We heard Mr.Sandeep M. Phatak, Advocate for the appellant/org. complainant. Respondents absent though deemed to be served (since notices sent Under Certificate of Posting returned with endorsement “addressee left” i.e. respondents not found on the registered address). We have carefully perused the papers made available to us. After anxious thought giving to the submissions made before us, we find that appeal is devoid of any merits for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.

Copy of the original advance receipt dated 22/12/1991 clearly record receipt of balance payment of Rs.700/- also. According to the complainant, balance amount was paid soon after the marriage. Judging on preponderance of probabilities, version of the O.P. which also gets corroboration from the entry in the diary maintained by him in the due course of business, that at the time of handing over the recorded cassette, he had received balance payment is to be accepted. The Forum below rightly considered all these aspects. The view taken by the learned Forum below is neither perverse nor improper. There is no reason to disturb the same in the appeal. Hence, we hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

-: ORDER :-

1. Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

2. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S.R. Khanzode) (B.B. Vagyani)

Judicial Member President