STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Admission : 25.06.2014 Date of Final Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 SC/5/A/104/2014

1. Dr. Achal Goyal S/o Late Sh. Shobha Ram

2. Sh. Sugam Goyal S/o Dr. Achal Goyal Both R/o Mangal Bhawan, 5B Vishnu Garden, Gandhi Ashram wali Gali, P.O. Gurukul Kangri, Kankhal Tehsil & District Haridwar (Through: Sh. Chetan Jain, Advocate)

…..Appellants VERSUS Sh. Narendra Kumar Sharma S/o not known P.C. Colour Lab, Opposite Prem Nagar Ashram Ranipur More, Haridwar (Through: Sh. Saurabh Rana, Advocate)

…..Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 22.05.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 241 of 2013 styled as Dr. Achal Goyal & Anr. vs. Sh.

Narendra Kumar Sharma, wherein and whereby the complaint was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainants engaged the opposite party – photographer for comprehensive photography and videography of all the marriage related function starting from 23.11.2012 up to farewell ceremony including all the rituals like Mandha, Ladies Sangeet etc. It was further agreed that the photography and videography would be carried out on dated 24.11.2012 with one Crane, four Plasma, twelve Posters, two videos and one Studio. The total consideration for such services was fixed at Rs. 40,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- was paid in advance and the remaining was to be paid to the opposite party. However, despite the aforesaid agreement, no photography and videography was carried out on dated 23.11.2012 during Mandha function and Ladies sangeet and no representative of the opposite party remained present at the marriage ceremony for the said purpose. On dated 24.11.2012 there was no photography and videography was carried out by the opposite party. In addition, although the agreement provided for installation of Plasma, Studio and Posters, the same were not arranged. Aggrieved by the deficient service and after reviewing the photography and videography provided by the opposite party, the complainants held dis- satisfied. Consequently, a legal notice was served upon the opposite party, however no remedy was provided by the opposite party and the complainants were constrained to file the complaint before the District Commission.

3. The opposite party denied all the allegations made by the complainants and contended that the complainants have not filed the complaint case on true and correct facts. It has been asserted that the answering opposite party duly carried out the photography and videography of the marriage ceremony in accordance with the instructions of the complainants. It was further alleged that the present complaint has been instituted with ulterior motive of exerting undue pressure and evading payment of the balance outstanding amount. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainants is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2014 wherein and whereby the complaint was dismissed.

5. On having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, an appeal has been submitted by the complainants as appellants before us alleging that the impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2014 is based on surmises and conjectures; the District Commission has wrongly held that appellants have not adduce any evidence in support of its advance payment of Rs. 10,000/-; the Commission below has also wrongly held that the appellants did not adduce any documentary evidence regarding payment of rem