Kottayam District Commission Holds Wedding Photographers Liable For Deficiency In Service; Orders ₹2.5 Lakh Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam, comprising Manulal V.S (President), Smt. Bindhu R (Member) and Sri K.M. Anto (Member), held Piccolo Weddings and its proprietor liable for deficiency in service for failing to provide agreed wedding photography and videography services. The Commission allowed the complaint, observing that the lapses caused great mental agony and hardship to the complainants, who had invested in preserving memories of a once-in-a-lifetime event.Brief FactsThe complainants, Dr. Ostin Oomachen and Dr. Kavya Santhosh P, engaged Piccolo Weddings (OP No.1) and its proprietor, Mr. Frimer Basil Eldhose (OP No.2), to provide wedding photography and videography services. The complainants entered into an agreement with the OPs for coverage of their wedding on 19-05-2024, opting for a “Bride and Groom Side Package” priced at Rs. 95,000. This package included services such as candid photography, creative cinematography, helicam coverage on the wedding day, albums, soft copies of raw videos, three wedding reels, a highlight video, and wedding story USBs.The complainants paid ₹80,000 (₹10,000 advance and ₹70,000 on the wedding day), fulfilling their contractual obligations. The complainants claimed that the OPs failed to provide several of the services agreed upon in the contract. In particular, the helicam service was not provided on the wedding day, and no prior notice was given, thereby depriving the complainants of the opportunity to make alternative arrangements.The complainants further contended that several deliverables were either not supplied or supplied incompletely and after considerable delay. The wedding highlight video was delivered belatedly, while wedding reels were not provided. Soft copies and raw video footage were incomplete, particularly missing key bride-side events.Additionally, the complainants alleged serious deficiencies in quality, including improper editing, lack of continuity, omission of significant ceremonies such as “Madhuram Veppu,” incomplete coverage of the holy mass, and loss of footage due to file errors. Several important visuals and still photographs were not captured at all, causing significant emotional distress.Aggrieved, the complainants approached the District Commission seeking refund and compensation.The opposite parties were set ex parte after failing to appear despite service of notice and publication in a newspaper.Findings of the CommissionThe Commission held that the complainants were bona fide consumers who had fulfilled their payment obligations. It observed that the opposite parties deviated from the terms of the agreement by failing to provide several promised services and by delivering incomplete and defective outputs, thereby constituting deficiency in service.The Commission noted that the matter proceeded on the basis of unchallenged evidence of the complainants. It further observed that the opposite parties had themselves deducted amounts of ₹4,900 and ₹5,000 towards non-provision of helicam services in the final bill, which amounted to an admission of deficiency.The Commission held that such lapses caused great mental agony and hardship to the complainants, particularly in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime event.Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed:Refund of ₹80,000 within 30 days, failing which it shall carry interest at 9% per annum from 19.05.2024 till realizationPayment of ₹2,50,000 as compensation for mental agony and hardshipPayment of ₹10,000 towards litigation costsThe Commission further directed that in case of default, the compensation amount shall also carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order till realization.Case Title : Dr. Ostin Oomachen vs Piccolo WeddingsC C No. 163/2025Click here to View or Download Order

Kottayam District Commission Holds Wedding Photographers Liable For Deficiency In Service; Orders ₹2.5 Lakh Compensation

Muhammed Razik

Tags