F.PRASANNA vs CHITRA COLOUR LABORATORY

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 13th day of August, 1998 in O.P. No. 41/1998 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirapalli.

THE appellants are the complainants while the respondent is the opposite party. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

The marriage of the first complainant''s brother, it appears, took place on 2.2.1998. The first complainant hired the services of the second complainant for taking photographs of the marriage function. The second complainant, it appears, also took photographs of the marriage function. After taking the photographs from his camera, the film rolls were removed and the removed film rolls, it appears, were handed over to the opposite party for the purpose of developing. The charges for developing the film rolls were to the extent of Rs. 60/-. The complainant would say that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in developing the films handed over to him and consequently the photos did not come properly.

IN such a backdrop and setting, the complainants knocked at the doors of the Forum below alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The opposite party in pith and substance contended that there was no deficiency in service on his part. The process of developing was done through computer process. The films handed over to him were processed. The possibility of taking the films by a camera utilised being defective cannot at all be ruled out of consideration and that because of the reason, the films developed were exposed. The complaint as such is liable to be dismissed.

THE Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that there was no proof on the side of the complainant that the film rolls handed over to the opposite party for developing were properly removed from the camera. THE further finding that was recorded by the Forum below was that there was no proof for the camera utilised in taking the photographs of the marriage ceremony of the first complainant''s brother was free from any defect. On those two findings the Forum below dismissed the complaint without costs. Aggrieved by the order as above, the appellants/complainants resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice namely learned Counsels M/s. S. Francis Xavier, N. Sathiamoorthy and K. Muthuramalingam. On service of process, the respondent/opposite party also entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice namely learned Counsels M/s. N.C. Ashok Kumar and C. Jagadeesh.

WHEN this matter came up for hearing before us today, learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties were called; absent and no representation was made on their behalf. The fact that the said learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties were called absent does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal, of course, after going through the materials placed on record and that is exactly what we have done in this action.

EVEN at the outset we may point out that there are absolutely no merits in this appeal. The findings recorded by the Forum below as stated above cannot at all be stated to be suffering from any infirmity on facts. There is no material available on record for tilting the findings so recorded by the Forum below. The appeal as such deserves to be dismissed. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.