DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2022
Filed on: 31/03/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member
CC.No. 145/2018
Between
COMPLAINANT
Anooj James, Kudiparambil House, Harmony Gardens, Nalanchira P.O., Thiruvananthapuram 695015.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
Manager/Proprietors, Eyebrow Weddings, 3rd Floor, Gold Souk Grand Mall, Vyttila, Kochi 682019
O R D E R
Sreevidhia T.N.: Member
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below
This complaint is filed for the compensation for deficiency in service from the opposite party since the opposite party have not provided the wedding album of the complainant after 9 months from the date of event. The complainant states that the total package for the album was Rs.2,30,000/- (Rupees. Two lakh thirty thousand only) both grooms and brides side together. Out of this Rs.95,000/- (Rupees. Ninety five thousand only) has already been paid. The complainant’s betrothal function was on 14/05/2017 and wedding was on 27/05/2017. Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) was paid as advance from both sides (Rs.22,500/- from each side). On the wedding day ie. 27/05/2017 Rs.10,000/- was paid as cash and Rs.65,000/- was given as cheque from the grooms side and Rs.75,000/- also paid from the brides side to the opposite party. As per the agreement the complainant had to receive the following
· Photo album
· Wedding highlight video
· Video coverage of both functions and the betrothal eve for bride’s side
· Framed photos
According to the agreement these are to be provided to the complainant within 30-40 days of final photo selection and a soft copy of the album was agreed to be provided for final review before printing. The complainant had to call the opposite party several times over phone to provide the soft copies of the photos of the event. After the repeated requests the opposite party provided the photos in several batches after repeated requests and the entire set was not provided to the complainant.
The complainant states that the photos given to them were of pure quality. The complainant was already dissatisfied with their service. After repeated requests the opposite party had promised to provide the soft copies of the photos by the 2nd week of November, 2017. At last the opposite party had provided the wedding highlights video on 8th December, 2017 and a draft of the album soft copy on 29/12/2017. The draft had several flaws including the mixing-up of the relatives photos, amateur photos selection, extremely poor editing of photos and repetition of same photos in the same page. The complainant had e-mailed to the opposite party about the flaws in the album. The complainant expressed their frustration over their poor services. The complainant alleges that the reluctance of the opposite party to handover the album soft copy amounts to deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. Hence the complainant approached the Forum/Commission to get the orders directing the opposite party to refund the full amount collected from the complainant ie. an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- and its interest and a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- due to the delay in providing the complainant’s wedding album and for causing mental agony, pain and other hardships.
Notice
The Forum issued notice to the opposite party on 06/04/2018. Upon notice from this Forum, the opposite party appeared and sought time for filing version. 30 days time granted to file their version. Case was posted to trial steps on 12/07/2018. No version filed by the opposite party. On 13/09/2018 opposite party appeared and filed an I.A. 444/2018. I.A.444/2018 was allowed on cost of Rs.5,000/- to CMR fund. For payment of cost the case was adjourned to 20/11/2018 and then adjourned to 18/09/2019. On 18/09/2019 opposite party filed version without the deposit of cost. Case posted for evidence in list to 13/11/2019. Hence the version can’t be considered in this case.
Evidence
Evidence in this case consists of documentary evidences which were marked as Exbt. A1 to A5. Evidence closed. Heard the complainant on 23/03/2022.
The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and cost?
For the sake of convenience we considered issue No. 1 and 2 together.
Exbt. A1 is a NEFT acknowledgement card with reference number P1704124718799 dated 12/04/2017 with beneficiary name EYEBROW WEDDING which shows that an amount of Rs.22,500/- (Rupees. Twenty two thousand five hundred only) was transferred to the opposite party’s account for the betrothal/wedding of the complainant. Exbt. A2 is the account statement of complainant’s account which is maintained at Federal Bank, Kulathupuzha – which shows that on 18/04/2017 Rs.22,500/- was transferred to the opposite party’s account. Exbt. A3 is an affidavit made by the complainant stating that on 27th May, 2017 ie. the wedding day Rs.10,000/- was paid as cash to Eyebrow Weddings, as per their request and no receipt of the same was given to the complainant by Eyebrow Weddings. Exbt. A4 is a statement of account of Raju Xavier’s account which is maintained at Canara Bank, Mayithara for the period from 01/06/2017 to 10/06/2017 which shows that on 06/06/2017 Rs.75,000/- was transferred to Eyebrow Weddings from account No, 1134101011188 via. NEFT. Exbt. A 5 is also a bank account details of Mr. James Thomas and Mrs. Ancy James. On 08/06/2017 Rs.65,000/- was transferred to Eyebrow Weddings from account number 301522254339 via. Cheque No. 867084. On 23/03/2020 complainant produced an authorization letter authorizing the complainant’s father-in-law Mr. Raju Xavier to do all proceedings in connection with C.C.No. 145/2018. The complainant has also produced the printouts of the whatsapp message dated 16/03/2018 demanding Rs.35,000/- and the complainant states that this was a demand for extra money and extra 100 pages said in the message was not according to the bilateral agreement. The whatsapp message was not seen marked as an exhibit. The complainant also states that Rs.45,000/- was paid as advance and Rs.10,000/- was paid as cash on wedding day. Total package cost was Rs.2,30,000/-. The complainant also states that there was a written agreement to cover both betrothal and wedding function and to deliver the photo album, wedding highlights video, full video of the entire programme, framed photos. But no written agreement was produced by the complainant before the Forum/Commission. On verification of records filed along with the complaint there are some copies of e-mail communications can be seen. But these e-mail communications between the complainant and the opposite party are not seen marked. These e-mail communication shows that the complainant is aggrieved by the action of the opposite party in the non-delivery of the album softcopy. As per the documents produced by the complainant, Rs.1,85,000/- was paid to the opposite party to cover the wedding album. The opposite party has not produced any evidence to prove that the wedding album was provided to the complainant within the stipulated time.
After considering the documents filed along with the complaint, we are of the opinion that deficiency in service is proved from the side of the opposite party. The opposite party has not produced any evidence to prove that the wedding album was handed over to the complainant in the sufficiency time of 9 months. The evidence adduced by the complainant regarding the payment of cash has not been denied by the opposite party through any evidence. The complainant must have physically and mentally suffered a large. We find that the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount he had already paid to the opposite party for the album. The complainant is found entitled to get compensation for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party, which in the circumstance of the case, we quantified to Rs.5,000/-
1. In the result we direct the opposite party to refund Rs.1,85,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty five thousand only) collected from the complainant as per Exbt.sA1, A2, A4 and A5.
2. We further direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)to the complainant for the deficient action taken towards the complainant in the fact of the case.
3. The complainant is found entitled to get Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the cost of the proceedings from the opposite party.
The above order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 25th day of July, 2022.
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence:
Exbt. A1: NEFT acknowledgement card with reference number P1704124718799 dated 12/04/2017
Exbt. A2: Account statement of complainant’s account which is maintained at Federal Bank, Kulathupuzha
Exbt. A3: An affidavit made by the complainant
Exbt. A4: Account statement of Raju Xavier’s account which is maintained at Canara Bank, Mayithara
Exbt. A5: Copy of bank passbook
Opposite party’s evidence:
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No.145/2018
Order Date: 25/07/2022
