Back
BOMBAY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member and
Poonam V. Maharshi, Member
Neha Prakash Valecha – Complainant
versus
Dinesh Vijaykumar Nathani and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Complaint No.958 of 2017
Decided on 9.4.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Harshiv Tharwani, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:N.C. Saini, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer commissions are empowered to grant fair and just compensation for actual suffering and loss, not to validate exaggerated or remote claims – Counter claim is untenable before Consumer Commission.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47] – Social events – Photography and Videography – Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice – OPs failed to deliver completed highlights, candid videos and albums within committed timeline of 45 days, and that crucial recordings were entirely missing – Opposite Parties’ claim of full and satisfactory delivery is contradicted by their own admissions, including acknowledgments of post-event editing sessions and delivery corrections – Their allegation of fabricated WhatsApp records is not substantiated by any evidence – Complainant has established, through both documentary and circumstantial evidence, that there was clear and continued deficiency in service on part of OPs – Complainant deserves to be compensated with reasonable and commensurate amount to reflect inconvenience, pain, and emotional void caused by failure of OPs to discharge their duties – Consumer commissions are empowered to grant fair and just compensation for actual suffering and loss, not to validate exaggerated or remote claims – Counter claim is untenable before Consumer Commission – OPs jointly and severally directed to pay to complainant sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, inconvenience, and emotional distress caused – OPs further directed to refund sum of Rs.50,000/- to complainant as a reasonable portion of amount paid in advance for services which remained deficient and incomplete – OPs also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards litigation costs to complainant. (Paras 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21)
Result: Consumer complaint partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member—The present consumer complaint is filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties in respect of professional services contracted for photography and videography at the wedding and related events of her only daughter held in November 2016. The complaint prayed for compensation for mental agony, loss of invaluable memories, refund of amounts paid, and expenses likely to be incurred due to failure on the part of the service providers to discharge their obligations with reasonable care, skill, and timeliness, as expected of professionals in their trade.
2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the complaint and supported by documentary evidence, are that the complainant had engaged the Opposite Parties, upon reference by Ram Decorators of Ulhasnagar, for coverage of all wedding events scheduled between 9th November 2016 and 15th November 2016. A consolidated quotation of Rs.3,13,000/- was given by the Opposite Parties for videography and photography of the bride and groom’s sides, including creation of albums, wedding highlights, candid coverage, and delivery of albums, DVDs, and USBs.
3. The contract included coverage of all events, “save the date” and “stand up” displays, LED screens, and preparation of multiple physical and digital deliverables. It was agreed that 75% of the total contract value would be paid in advance and the remaining 25% upon final delivery of albums and videos.
4. In accordance with the said arrangement, the complainant paid Rs.2,34,000/- to the Opposite Parties before the commencement of the wedding events. However, after the conclusion of all events, the complainant alleges that there were serious lapses in performance and delivery by the Opposite Parties. Not only were the albums and videos not delivered within the agreed timeline of 45 days, but the content provided was also riddled with shortcomings which included missing recordings of entire functions such as the Cocktail and Ring Ceremony, incomplete coverage of the Mehendi, errors in the sequencing and editing of videos, absence of decoration shots and candid captures, and discrepancies in the album design and content.
5. Complainant alleged that the Repeated requests were made by the complainant and her family friend Mr. Easo Cherian through WhatsApp messages and personal visits to the Opposite Parties’ office did not yield satisfactory results, leading to frustration and hardship.
6. Consumer complaint was admitted and notice was issued. The Opposite Parties filed their written statement denying the allegations in toto, asserting that the complainant had, in fact, received all deliverables and was using the process to avoid paying the remaining Rs.1,39,000/- alleged to be due towards extra work including additional album sheets.
7. They denied any delay or deficiency, asserting that the complainant and her representatives had attended their office on multiple occasions, participated in editing sessions, and collected the albums and USBs after satisfaction. They alleged that the WhatsApp messages were fabricated, and further filed a counterclaim seeking Rs.44,00,000/- on account of mental agony, loss of business, and alleged deterioration of health of Opposite Party No. 2’s mother, purportedly due to the stress caused by this litigation.
8. Both advocates had given a joint pursis requesting to consider their written notes of argument in lieu of oral submissions. We have perused the material placed on record, including the written arguments, affidavits, WhatsApp chats, delivery acknowledgments, invoices, and correspondence. In light of the rival contentions and materials placed on record, and having heard the learned advocates for both parties at length, the following issues arise for determination in the present case:
Issues for Determination
Sr. Issues Findings
No.
1. Whether the Opposite
