IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM Dated, the 26^th day of February, 2026 Present: Sri. Manulal V.S, President Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sri. K.M. Anto, Member C C No. 163/2025 (Filed on 29.03.2025)

Complainants 1. Dr. Ostin Oomachen, Kochuparambil House, Attickal, Ponkunnam P.O., Kottayam- 686 506

2. Dr. Kavya Santhosh P, Kochuparambil House, Attickal, Ponkunnam P.O, Kottayam, PIN 686 506 (By Adv. Sijo Joseph)

Opposite party 1. Piccolo Weddings, 2nd floor, Kaloor, Kochi, Ernakulam, Kerala 682017, Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Frimer Basil Eldhose, 2. Mr. Frimer Basil Eldhose, Kollamparambil Lane, Near K.A. Super Market, Rockwell Road, Pallilamkara, Kalamasserry-686 503

O R D E R

Smt. Bindhu R, Member This complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The present complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, who are engaged in providing wedding photography and videography services. The complainants, who are doctors by profession, were married on 19.05.2024 and engaged the services of the opposite parties to capture and document their wedding events after being influenced by the quality of photographs and reels displayed by the Opposite Parties on their social media platform.

Pursuant to mutual discussions, the complainants opted for the “Bride and Groom Side Package” offered by the Opposite Parties for a total consideration of ₹ 95,000/-(Rupees ninety five thousand only). The package included coverage of wedding eve and wedding day events through candid photography and creative cinematography, function photography, helicam coverage on the wedding day, and delivery of various outputs including wedding albums, soft copies of photographs and raw videos, wedding reels, a wedding highlight video, wedding story USBs, and certain complimentary gift items. In accordance with the agreement, the complainants paid an advance amount of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) on 03.03.2024 and a further sum of ₹ 70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) on the wedding day, thereby fulfilling their contractual obligations.

However, according to the complainants, the opposite parties failed to perform their obligations under the contract. It is alleged that the helicam service, which formed a specific component of the agreed package, was not provided on the wedding day and no prior intimation was given to the complainants, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to make alternate arrangements. The Opposite Parties later waived the helicam charges unilaterally after the event, which, according to the complainants, does not absolve them from liability arising from non-performance of the agreed service.

The complainants further contend that several deliverables were either not supplied or were supplied incompletely and after considerable delay. Although albums were received, the soft copies and raw video deliverables were incomplete, with important footage relating to the bride’s side events of the wedding eve and wedding morning remaining undelivered. The agreed wedding reels were also not provided as promised. The wedding highlight video was delivered only on 20.11.2024 through WhatsApp after repeated follow-ups and considerable delay.

In addition to non-delivery, the complainants allege serious deficiencies in quality and professionalism. The wedding story video allegedly omitted significant portions of the ceremony, including important events such as the “Madhuram Veppu,” and several video sequences were abruptly edited without logical continuity or professional sequencing. Certain events were inadequately covered, parts of the holy mass were not fully recorded, and some footage was reportedly lost due to file errors. The complainants further allege that key visuals and still photographs expected under the contract were not captured at all, resulting in emotional distress and dissatisfactio