2 Oct 2023 9:30 AM GMT
Recently, the Bangalore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of M. Shobha (President), K Anita Shivakumar (Member) and Suma Anil Kumar (Member) held a photographer liable for not delivering the wedding video even after 15 days following the complainant’s wedding. The bench while noting that the photographer repeatedly assured the complainant that the...
Recently, the Bangalore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of M. Shobha (President), K Anita Shivakumar (Member) and Suma Anil Kumar (Member) held a photographer liable for not delivering the wedding video even after 15 days following the complainant’s wedding. The bench while noting that the photographer repeatedly assured the complainant that the delay in delivering the wedding CD was due to editing issues, held him liable of deficiency of service.
Gayathri B G (“Complainant”), a 29-year-old woman residing in Bengaluru, hired one Anand Nallapete (“Photographer”) to capture her wedding day memories, agreeing to pay him Rs 80,000 for both photography and videography services. An initial advance payment of Rs 5,000 was made by the complainant through online transfer on January 15, 2021. On the day of the wedding, the complainant handed over Rs 65,000 in cash to the photographer, making a total payment of Rs 70,000 on the wedding day. The photographer provided the complainant with a photo album but failed to deliver the promised wedding video within 15 days of the ceremony. Despite multiple requests and follow-ups by the complainant, the photographer provided evasive replies, delaying the delivery of the wedding video. In September 2022, the complainant sent a legal notice to the photographer, demanding the delivery of the wedding video and a refund of the entire amount paid. The photographer did not respond to the legal notice, prompting the complainant to file a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (“District Commission”).
The photographer asserted that the complainant had not paid the full agreed-upon amount of Rs. 80,000. He admitted receiving an advance of Rs 5,000 and an additional Rs 10,000 through online transfers. However, he contested that the complainant still owed him Rs 65,000, which she had promised to pay in cash on the wedding day. The photographer claimed that he had withheld the wedding video because of the alleged outstanding balance of Rs 65,000. He further argued that he had not received the full payment, and therefore, he was justified in not delivering the wedding video.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission reviewed the facts of the case, acknowledging that the complainant had engaged the photographer’s services for her wedding photography and videography. Upon reviewing the evidence and documents presented by both parties, including WhatsApp conversations and financial transactions, the District Commission found no evidence to support the photographer’s claim that the complainant still owed him Rs 65,000. It noted that the photographer had not raised the issue of outstanding payment until after the complaint was filed.
Consequently, the District Commission concluded that the photographer’s withholding of the wedding video, despite receiving full payment, constituted a deficiency in service and an unfair practice. Therefore, the District Commission directed him to deliver the wedding video CD to the complainant and to pay her Rs. 20,000 as compensation, along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from March 5, 2021, the date of the wedding. An additional sum of Rs. 8,000 was directed towards the cost of the legal proceedings within 30 days from the date of the commission's order.
Case: Smt. Gayathri B G vs Anand Nallapete
Case No.: CC/242/2022
Advocate for the Complainant: Sri. Mahalingaiah
Advocate for the Respondent: Chaluvaraju. G
Click Here To Read/Download Order