PANDI @ KARUPPANAN AMBALAM Vs. MANISH PHOTOS & VIDEOS
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2010-10-1
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 05,2010

Pandi @ Karuppanan Ambalam Appellant
VERSUS
Manish Photos And Videos Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE complainant is the appellant.
(2.) THE complainant/appellant, who had celebrated the marriage of his eldest son, engaged the service of the opposite party, for video recording the betrothal, as well the marriage celebration, fixing a sum of Rs. 4,500, out of which Rs. 2,500 has been paid, as advance on 23.10.2004. Accordingly, the opposite party recorded the betrothal function on 24.10.2004, between 6 to 8, in the house of the bride at Thiruparangundram, and thereafter the marriage events on 15.12.2004, at Thirumohur, Arulmigu Kalamega Perumal Temple. But as agreed, instead of giving CD and digital photographs, for both, despite repeated demands, he had given only two CDs in respect of the marriage, thereby failing to give CD as well as photographs, for the betrothal function, and photographs of marriage function. The act of the opposite party, in not giving the CD, covering the video, for the betrothal, and digital photo album of marriage function, had caused mental agony, for which notice was issued, had elicited only false reply, thereby compelling the complainant to approach the Consumer Forum, for the direction to handover the CDs and album for both the events, as well for a sum of Rs.25,000 for mental agony.
(3.) THE opposite party, accepting the service rendered by them, to some extent, inter alia opposed the claim, that there was no contract for taking video, regarding the betrothal function, and the contract was only in respect of the marriage function, for which alone Rs. 6,500 was fixed, out of which Rs. 2,500 paid as advance, that as agreed they have covered the marriage function, then, when they went to handover the CDs, as well as album, the complainant failed to pay the balance of Rs. 4000, and therefore only CDs were handed over, asking the complainant to pay the balance, and take the album, which cannot be termed as deficiency in service, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint, denying further averments also. The District Forum, analyzing the admitted facts, supported by the affidavits, felt that there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party, and the complainant alone has failed to pay the balance of the amount, for which photo album was not given, which cannot be termed as deficiency. In this view, while dismissing the complaint, a direction also issued, if the complainant is willing to take the album, he should pay the balance as agreed, which had given grievance to the complainant, resulting this appeal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.