Full Judgment
P.Q. Barkathali: President
This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.257/11 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram challenging the order of the Forum dated, July 31, 2012 directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- towards cost for the defective photographs taken by the opposite party regarding the marriage function of the complainant.
2. The case of the respondent/complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-
Complainant had entrusted the work of videography and photography of his marriage function with M/s Friends Digital run by the opposite party. Opposite party took the video and photographs as agreed and collected Rs.7000/- from the complainant towards the advance. Complainant later selected the required photographs to be printed and Rs.5000/- was paid on the next day. After one month the album and photographs were handed over to the complainant. On a perusal of the same the photos were found arranged disorderly and quality of the photos were very poor. The full photos selected were not printed. Opposite party refused to rectify those defects. Therefore complainant filed the complaint before the Forum claiming compensation.
3. The opposite party in his version denied the entire transaction and contended thus before the Forum. Opposite party and the complainant were close friends. Opposite party has no connection with the Friends Digital. As requested by the complainant opposite party has taken the video and photographs and transferred it in a DVD tape and delivered to the complainant free of cost. That being so the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1 and 2 witnesses, PWs 2 and 3 and Exts.P1 to P3 series were marked on his side. No evidence was adduced by the opposite party before the Forum. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum accepted the case of the complainant and allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.3000/- with interest. Forum has also directed the opposite party to hand over the CD containing the photographs to the complainant. The opposite party has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/opposite party and respondent/complainant who have appeared in person.
The following points arise for consideration:-
1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
6. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum was that he entrusted the work of videography and photography of his marriage function with M/s Friends Digital run by the opposite party, that the opposite party has taken the photographs and the video and PW1 paid Rs.7000/- as advance on that day itself, that on the next day PW1 paid Rs.5000/- to the opposite party, that 310 photos were selected but only less than 200 photos were printed in the album and that the photographs were not arranged properly and some of the photos were incomplete.
7. The case of the opposite party was of total denial. According to him PW1 is his friend, that he had done the work free of cost and that he did not receive any amount from PW1.
8. Therefore the question for consideration is whether the version of PW1 is true. We have gone through the evidence adduced by both parties and the order of the Forum we are of the view that complainant has proved his case before the Forum.
9. Complainant has produced the album before the Forum. In that album it is printed as M/s Friends Digital Videos and Photos. Ext.P2 is the copy of the relevant page of the album. Ext.P1 is the visiting card of M/s Friends Catering Service. In Ext.P1 and P2 the mobile phone number of the opposite party is seen mentioned. It is clear from the above that opposite party has taken the said photographs.
10. Further complainant as PW1 testified in support of his case. It is not seen suggested during the cross-examination that he has any enmity towards the opposite party to file a false complaint. PW2 as well as PW3 testified regarding the payment of the amount to opposite party. Their evidence is not seen shaken in cross-examination. Therefore we confirm the finding of the Forum that PW1 had entrusted with the opposite party the photography and videography of his marriage function and paid Rs.12,000/- to him.
11. The albums were produced before the Forum and the Forum found that in some photos top portion is cut off and also the arrangement of photos are also seen proper. Some of the photos were in black and white which the complainant did not ask for. It is clear from the above that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.
12. Forum awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.3000/-. We find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.
In the result we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with a cost of Rs.5000/-.