##PAGE1##

C.C.No. : 64/2026 Date of filing : 08.05.2026 Date of Disposal : 17.10.2026 BEFORE THE HASSAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HASSAN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.64/2026 Dated on this the 17^th day of October 2026 Present : 1) Hon’ble Smt. Chanchala.C.M, B.A.L, LL.B., PRESIDENT

2) Hon’ble Smt. Anupama.R, B.COM., LL.B., L.MEMBER COMPLAINANT Dr.Chinmayi M W/o Dr.Ashok Kumar C.P., R/o Sri Chennakeshava Nilaya, 2^nd Cross, Behind Police Quarters, Maruthi Nagara, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan-573103.

(In-person)

V/s OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Mr.Karthik Singh Proprietor, Karthik Singh Photography, R/o Venkatagiri Nilaya, Kuvempu Nagar, Tumakuru-572103.

2. Mrs.Sharvari W/o Mr.Karthik Singh, Associate/Representative, Karthik Singh Photography, R/o Venkatagiri Nilaya, Kuvempu Nagar, Tumakuru-572103.

(Rept. by Sri GN, Adv.,)

Date of filing of complaint 08.05.2026 Date of service of notice to OPs 18.05.2026 Date of order 17.10.2026 Total period taken 05 months 09 days

O R D E R

DELIVERED BY SMT. ANUPAMA.R, LADY MEMBER On behalf of the bench

1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying this Commission to direct the OPs to refund Rs.,1,40,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards incidental expenses, Rs.3,000/- for travel expenses, declare demand of Rs.32,000/- illegal and any other relief the Commission deemed fit.

2. The brief facts of case is as under;

Complainant relied upon the portfolio and representation made by the Ops on their Instagram account “Karthik-singh-photography, which showed high quality photography and videography services. Influenced and decided to engage them for her wedding by agreeing to pay Rs.2,05,000/- which include candid/cinematic video services for engagement. On 28.11.2024 complainant had paid Rs.1,99,200/- which included Rs.16,200/- towards travel expenses. At the time of agreement Op1 had promised to attend personally for the key events like engagement ceremony, wedding reception etc. Later Op deployed subcontracted photographers without consent and Ops delivered the photos late and missed important events. Further submits that the engagement photographs delivered were substandard. Despite complaints, only assurance were given without proper rectification and assured that Op1 would personally cover the reception and wedding. Op1 was again absent during the reception and wedding. Due to late arrival of subcontracted photographers important wedding movements were not captured including bridal home rituals on the day of reception, Bridal procession with relatives and musicians, Groom entry in car with relatives, these photographers later asked to artificially recreate events, which lacked authenticity. Further Op failed to capture the photographs and videography of the bridal make up on the day of reception and LED Screen was not placed at the designated location, namely the ground floor area where food was being served, resulting in inconvenience to guests. Further drone shot of reception and wedding inside the hall, videography of guests during dining was also neglected and pre wedding video displayed during reception was poorly edited and missing key footage, causing embarrassment to the complainant and her family. Further complainant couriered her hard disk on 30.09.2025, requesting upload of photos/videos and return. No response was received, forcing a family member to travel 200 km to collect materials. On 09.01.2026 the complainant requested album delivery by courier, but again no response, forcing another 200 km travel, causing additional expenses, Op caused inordinate delay of one year in delivering engagement video and nearly one year delay in photos, video copy and printed album, Op demand Rs.32,000/- instead of pending Rs.22,000/- without proper grounds which was unjustified. These amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

3. Upon service of notice to OPs, Ops appeared be