S.Venkataraman v. M/s. Athea Wedding Portraits and 2 other

3

promised to give better quality and asked for a payment of Rs.1,82,000/- for which the Complainant agreed and also paid prior to the wedding date by way of cash, to the Opposite Parities.

3) The Complainant submitted that the wedding was on 11.11.2021. The reception was on the previous day. Though the Complainant paid the Opposite Parties a total amount of Rs.1,82,000/-, the Opposite Parties, further demanded that their technicians had to be provided two rooms in Hotel Crescent, which is situated near the wedding venue. The Complainant was not informed of this requirement at the time of booking and it was a last minute demand. Left without any option, the Complainant accepted this also and booked two rooms for their technicians at a cost of Rs.3,000/- per room (Total: Rs.6,000/-)

4) The sample photos were sent on 29.11.2021. When the Complainant asked for the video in the second week of December, the Opposite Parties sent a 5 minute video on 13.12.2021. On seeing the sample photos and video sent by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant was shocked to note that the photos and the video sent by the Opposite Parties were of poor quality.

5) The Opposite Parties had promised to deliver the photos and videos by within one month from the date of the wedding, i.e, before December 21, 2021 but they did not.

4

6) The Opposite Parties asked for an empty hard disc on 13.11.2021 and told the Complainant that they would remind him on what date the hard disc should be couriered to them. The Opposite Parties on 30.11.2021 and 06.12.2021 sent messages through Whatsapp demanding the hard disc. On 16.12.2021 the hard disc was handed over to the Opposite Parties in person and the same was acknowledged by the Opposite Parties by a Whatsapp message. As regards the alleged delay in handing over the hard disc, the Opposite Parties have suppressed facts. The Opposite Parties wanted to transfer all the photographs into the hard disc and hand over the hard disc to the Complainant for selection of about 400 photographs, for which the Complainant was not agreeable. He feared that if he handed over the hard disc, the Opposite Parties would copy every photo into it and wash off their responsibility. That was why the Complainant did not handover the hard disk immediately. In fact, what he feared came true. He handed over the hard disc on 16.12.2021, only because the Opposite Parties were adamant in this regard. In the last week of December, 2021, the Opposite Parties sent back the hard disc handed over by the Complainant, copying more than 15,000 raw photos and also sent a message to the Complainant that out of the 15,000 photos, the Complainant had to select 400 for two albums. It is practically impossible to select 400 pictures from a collection of more than 15,000 photos. In fact, the Complainant was not informed about this at all prior to the wedding and he was made to believe that the best photos would

5

be selected by the Opposite Parties themselves and the album would be prepared by them. The Complainant wanted the Opposite Parties to select the best 400 photos and the Complainant told them that he will arrange it in order. The Complainant asked the Opposite Parties to do that work themselves as agreed, but till date they have not done so.

7) On 27.12.2021, the Opposite Parties gave a lengthy video for one hour. On 31.12.2021 the reception video containing one hour was also sent by the Opposite Parties. On seeing both the videos, the Complainant was shocked to note that both the videos were of a very poor quality and they lacked clarity. The work lacked quality that is expected of professional the Opposite Parties sent the footage from only one video. Hence the full function was not covered in that footage. The size of the marriage hall was approximately 30,000 square feet. The Opposite Parties did not cover the full marriage area and hence the coverage was very poor. The Complainant sent several messages to rectify the above defects in quality. The Opposite Parties kept on sending messages that they would rectify the quality of the two videos but till 24.02.2022, the Opposite Parties did not take any step to send the corrected videos with better quality.

8) In the last week of February, 2022, the Complainant complained to the Opposite Parties regarding the above-said deficiencies once again. Thereafter, on 24.02.2022 the Opposite Parties send a 42-minute video, which also lacked quality and 1,000 photographs. Out of this, the

6

Complainant selected 400 photographs for the two albums and sent them to the Opposite Parties, but till date they have not given the album to the Complainant. Seeing the poor quality of the 42-minute video, the Complainant gave the full video coverage of his son's wedding and asked the Opposite Parties to give at least a similar video if not better.

9) In a nut-shell, though more than 9 months have elapsed since the marriage, the Opposite Parties have not delivered the photographs, the corrected video and the albums as and in the manner agreed by them, despite repeated requests being made by the Complainant.

10) From December, 2021 to March, 2022, there have been hundreds of messages and phone calls exchanged between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties through Whatsapp, but they have been of no use since the Opposite Parties prime motive seems to be to cheat the Complainant. Hence the Complaint.

II. Written version of 1^st Opposite Party adopted by 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties in brief is as follows:

11) The 1^st Opposite Party submitted that they are specialized in the field of photography and videography. The Complainant approached the Opposite Parties and enquired about photography and videography for her daughter's wedding. The Opposite Parties evaluated his requirements and explained their works in the field of photography and videography. After discussions, the Opposite Parties shared a final proposal on 30/09/2021 and

7

the Complainant agreed for the same and paid a sum of Rs. 1,82,000/- in a phased manner.

12) Providing of two rooms for the crew within the venue or nearby location for accommodation had been already informed to the Complainant at the time of booking itself and the Complainant was very much aware of the same and agreed for the same.

13) The Opposite Parties have fulfilled their promises made in the timeline provided to the Complainant except album and the photo frames for which the express approval of Complainant is required to physical printing as it is the cost intensive process and the Complainant failed to provide the necessary. For the delivery of Long Video of Reception and Wedding, it would consume more time to finish and deliver. The same was conveyed to the Complainant and obtained the necessary approval from him.

14) The Opposite Parties had issued their reply notice with the complying facts to the legal notice dated 21.03.2022. It is not the intention of the Opposite Parties to complicate or confuse. It had put forth in the reply notice, the facts necessary to the allegations and it is the practice of reveals the true other aspect of allegations and it provides the intention of Complainant to harass and damage the reputation of the Opposite Parties through the above complaint.

8

15) The complaint has been filed with the malafide intention to gain unjust profits at the hands of the Opposite Parties and therefore, the Complaint ought to be dismissed.

III. The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed 8 documents which are marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8. The Opposite Parties had submitted their proof affidavit. No documents marked on the side of Opposite Parties. Written arguments of Complainant and Opposite Parties filed.

Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

3. To what other relief, the Complainant is entitled to?

POINT NO. 1 :-

16) The case of the Complainant is that he had contacted the Opposite Parties for planning and decoration of his daughter Smt.S.V.Sowmiya's Wedding on 11.11.2021 for the Wedding photography and Videography and paid a sum of Rs.1,82,000/-. Apart from the said amount of Rs.1,82,000/- the Complainant had booked two rooms at a cost of Rs.3000/- per room and totally Rs.6,000/- for the stay of the technicians in Hotel Crescent situated

9

near the Wedding Venue. The Opposite Parties had failed to deliver the deliverables as promised by them within the stipulated time. The sample photos were sent on 29.11.2021 and a five minute video on 13.12.2021. The sample photos and video sent by the Opposite Parties were of poor quality. The Opposite Parties had promised to deliver the photos and videos within one month from the date of wedding i.e., before 21.12.2021 but they did not deliver. As per the demand of the Opposite Parties on 30.11.2021 and 06.12.2021, the Complainant had handed over the empty hard disk on 16.12.2021 to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Parties wanted to transfer all the photographs in to the hard disk and hand over the hard disk to the Complainant for selection of 400 photographs for which the Complainant was not agreeable, as the Complainant feared that the Opposite Parties by handing over the hard disk would wash of their responsibility. In the last week of December 2021 the Opposite Parties had sent back the hard disk copying more than 15,000 raw photos out of which the Complainant had to select 400 for two albums, which is practically impossible. The Complainant wanted the Opposite Parties to select the best 400 photos and that he will arranged in order, but till date they have not done so.

17) It was contended by the Complainant that on 27.12.2021 the Opposite Parties gave a lengthy video for one hour and on 31.12.2021 they had sent the reception video containing one hour, which were of poor quality and lacked clarity. Inspite of the several messages to rectify the defects in

10

quality of the two videos till 24.02.2022 the Opposite Parties did not take any steps to send the corrected video with better quality. Thereafter on 24.02.2022 the Opposite Parties had sent a 42 minute video which also lacked quality and 1000 photographs, out of which the Complainant selected 400 photographs for the two albums and sent them to the Opposite Parties, but till date they have not given the album to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties had not delivered the photographs, the corrected video and the albums in the manner agreed by them.

18) Per contra, the Opposite Parties had submitted that they are specialized in the filed of photography and videography. The Complainant had approached the Opposite Parties for the photography and videography of his daughter's wedding and after discussions the Complainant agreed with the terms and conditions of the Opposite Parties had paid a sum of Rs.1,82,000/-. The Opposite Parties had completely covered the photography and videography of the Complainant's daughter wedding ceremony with good quality and in elite manner. The Complainant had already agreed to provide two rooms for the crew within the venue or nearby location for accommodation. The Opposite Parties had fulfilled their promises made the time line provided to the Complainant except album and photo frames for which express approval of Complainant is required for physical printing. For the delivery of long video of reception and wedding it would consume more time to finish and deliver. The same was conveyed to

11

the Complainant and obtain necessary approval the requirement of empty hard disk was to deliver the photos and videos as mentioned in the general terms. After multiple follow ups the empty hard disk was handed over on 16.12.2021. Raw footages of photo and videos had been delivered to the Complainant with instructions to select 400 photos out of the raw footage. The Complainant had not cooperated with the process and had delayed his approval.

19) The Opposite Parties submitted that the long video for reception and the long video for marriage were delivered on 27.12.2021 and 31.12.2021 respectively to the Complainant. With no co-operation from the Complainant inspite of multiple attempts made to the get feedback and responses to fulfill the expectations of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties provided the Complainant with the clean, elegant version of the event on 24.02.2022. It was contended that though the Complainant shortlisted collection of 400 photos on 24.02.2022, there is a mandatory need of express approval from the Complainant to print the album and photo frames as it is the cost intensive process which the Complainant has not furnished.

20) The undisputed facts are that the Complainant had engaged the services of the Opposite Parties for the coverage of Photography and Videography of his daughter's wedding on payment of Rs.1,82,000/- as evident from Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-3. The deliverables agreed by the Opposite Parties as contained in Ex.A-4 is as follows:

12

1) 200 nos colour corrected picture within 15 days

2) Wedding Highlights Video upto 4 mins within 25 days

3) Wedding documents Video 30-40 mins per event within 25 days

4) Raw photos by 4^thweek (Client to provide 2 TB HDD)

5) Two Albums (40 sheets with 200 pics)

6) Whatsapp Invitation

7) One Coffee Table Book

8) Two Photo Frame (Size 12"8)

21) The Opposite Parties contended that they had fulfilled their promises made in the time line provided to the Complainant except the album and photo frames. The promised deliverables and time lines committed by the Opposite Parties is as follows:

22) According to the Opposite Parties the photos given by them are

"Teaser Photos" of the event that had been promised and delivered on 29.11.2021. In addition the five minute video was the "Highlight Video" of the event that had been promised and delivered on 13.12.2021 and in both

13

cases the committed deliverables time line had been fulfilled before the due date.

23) In so far as the quality of the photos and videos shared with the Complainant is through "Dropbox" which is cloud platform for storage of large files and the Complainant was given instructions to download and view in order to get the full resolution of the video, which contention of the Opposite Parties is to be accepted as it is not known whether the Complainant followed the instructions of the Opposite Parties to get the desired output and neither the Complainant proved that the quality of the photos and videos is of poor quality as alleged by the Complainant.

24) The Complainant had sent a legal notice dated 21.03.2022, Ex.A-7 raising various allegation against the Opposite Parties to hand over the wedding photos, videos and albums along with damages, for which the Opposite Parties had issued a detailed reply notice dated 25.04.2022, Ex.A-8 stating the finalization of proposal, pre wedding creative and general discussions, event coverage, post wedding deliverable, delay in receiving hard disk, album design and photo selection, reasons for 15,000 photos, about long video and of the negative review posted by the Complainant in the Google.

25) From the above discussions it is clear that the Opposite Parties had delivered Teaser Photos, Highlight Video, Long video for wedding, Long

14

video for Reception, Raw pictures almost within the time limit committed by them along with the Wedding Album layout. Regarding the quality of Teaser photos and Highlight video according to the Opposite Parties was shared with the Complainant through Dropbox which is cloud platform for storage of large files and instructions was given by the Opposite Party to download in order to get the full resolution of video and it is not known whether the Complainant had followed the instructions of the Opposite party. Moreover mere allegations regarding the quality of teaser photos and High Video without any substantial evidence could not be considered by this Commission. It is seen that the Complainant has made delay in selecting photos out of the raw photos and is alleged to have sent shortlisted collection of 400 photos on 24.02.2022. Though there is some delay on the part of the Complainant in selecting raw photos and the Opposite Parties had to wait for the approval from the Complainant to deliver the wedding photos, videos and albums covering the wedding ceremony of the Complainant's daughter, it is seen that the Opposite Parties has not delivered the deliverables till date to the Complainant, even after the selection was made by the Complainant and sent to the Opposite Parties. Hence the act of the Opposite Parties in not delivering the wedding photos, video and albums till date for the marriage that has taken place on 11.11.2021 amounts deficiency in service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

15

POINT NOS. 2 &3:-

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the 1^st, 2^ndand 3^rd Opposite Parties, the 1^st, 2^ndand 3^rd Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to handover the wedding photos, videos and albums to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and along with the sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to handover the wedding photos, videos and albums to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation for deficiency in service and along with the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost of the litigation within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order failing which the above amount shall carry at the rate of interest 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of the order till the date of realization.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 1^st day of October 2024.

S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA

MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT

16

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

NIL

S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA

MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT