MADALA COLOR LAB vs GANDIKOTA RAGHAVENDRA RAO

THE opposite party i.e., Madala Color Lab, Kakinada represented by its proprietor Mr. Madala Lakshmana Prasad in OP. No. 273/1995 on the file of the East Godavari District Forum at Kakinada preferred this appeal questioning the order dated 4.12.1997 passed therein directing it to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the loss sustained by the complainant and also Rs. 500/- towards costs within 30 days from the date of the order.

THE facts of the case are briefly stated as follows. THE respondent herein filed a complaint numbered as OP No. 273/1995 before the East Godavari District Forum at Kakinada alleging that being a Scientist in Free University of Bruswals took number of photos in different remote areas in Coringa and Gaderu with respect to vegetation, field surveys, water samplings and scientific samplings with his sophisticated Olympus auto focus camera and entrusted the film consisting of 36 snaps to the opposite party for the purpose of developing and printing for colour slides with clear instructions and paid an advance of Rs. 100/- to the opposite party, that the opposite party advised him to come back to him 1 hours thereafter for taking delivery of the transparencies, that accordingly he went back to the opposite party on that day for taking delivery of the film, that he found to his surprise that the negatives were completely spoiled and became positive (black and white) and the opposite party gave two copies of the spoiled prints and attributed the fault to his staff when he questioned him why the film was spoiled, that thereafter on 17.5.1995 he got issued a legal notice calling upon the opposite party to pay damages but the opposite party gave a reply with false and untenable contentions, that the entire work he has done as a Scientist has gone waste and that he is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 40,000/ - and also costs. He accordingly prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 40,000/ - as compensation and also costs of the complaint. The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing a counter contending that the complainant simply entrusted the film to him and asked him to develop it and to give post card size prints, that accordingly he issued a booking receipt mentioning that the cost of each post card size is Rs. 3.50 ps. and developing charges of Rs. 20/-, that the complainant did not tell him that the film was for colour slides, that his laboratory does not possess the required equipment for taking colour slides, that had the complainant told him that the film was for colour slides he would have returned the film stating that there is no equipment with him, that the fact that in the booking receipt itself he mentioned the cost of each post card size is Rs. 3.50 ps. and developing charges Rs. 20/- indicates that the complainant knew that the film was given to him for the purpose of colour prints and not for colour slides, that when he fed the film into the automatic machine he got the film prints only as it is a mechanical process without involvement of manual labour and that there is no deficiency in service on his part. The further contention of the opposite party as stated in the counter is that on the back of the printed receipt it was stated that the opposite party is not liable for any damages and that in case of damage the liability of the opposite party is limited to replacement by similar unexposed film or retail cost of the material and therefore he is not liable to pay the compensation claimed by the complainant at any rate.

At the time of inquiry the complainant filed his affidavit and got Exs. A1 to A3 marked in support of his case. The District Forum stated in its order that the opposite party also filed affidavit but we do not find the affidavit of the opposite party on record. No oral evidence was adduced by either party.

AFTER considering the material on record the District Forum held that "there is a duty cast on the opposite party to ascertain the very nature of the film entrusted to him and to proceed with the work", that because Ex. A3 carton containing the film shows that it is a film for colour slides and because the film also contains printed matter stating that the film is for colour slides the opposite party should have verified the nature of the film before feeding the same into the automatic machine and that the opposite party has not properly discharged its responsibility and that therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly the District Forum quantified the damages at Rs. 5,000/- and passed the impugned order directing the opposite party to pay a total compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant together with costs of Rs. 500/- within 30 days from the date of the order. The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and whether the complainant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.

WE have gone through the order of the District Forum, material on record and the grounds of appeal. The case of the complainant is that he entrusted to the opposite party a film consisting of 36 snaps for colour slides and gave clear instructions to the opposite party to process it for colour slides and that instead of processing the film for colour slides the opposite party processed the film as a film for colour prints and spoiled the same and the film became positive (black and white) and that he sustained loss. There is no dispute by the opposite party that the complainant entrusted to him a film consisting of 36 snaps. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not given clear instructions to process the film as a film for colour slides and therefore he developed and processed the film as a film for colour prints as usual. The further contention of the opposite party is that he does not possess the equipment for processing the film as a film for colour slides, that he would have returned the film to the complainant had the complainant instructed him to process the film as a film for colour slides and that in view of the fact that the required '' equipment is not available either with him or any where in Andhra Pradesh the question of his undertaking the job of processing the film as a film for colour slides does not arise. It is also the contention of the opposite party that the complainant asked him to process the film and give post card size prints and accordingly he issued a receipt mentioning the rate of the post card size prints as Rs. 3.50 ps. each and developing charges at Rs. 20/- and that thereafter he fed the film into the automatic machine and got the spoiled negative film and that there is no deficiency in service on his part. In his proof affidavit the complainant categorically stated that he gave clear instructions to the opposite party to process the film as a film for colour slides and that he never instructed the opposite party to give colour prints of post card size. The complainant also denied that the opposite party issued a receipt stating that post card size prints were to be given to the complainant at the cost of Rs. 3.50 ps. each and the charges for developing the film is Rs. 20/-. It may be seen that the opposite party has not chosen to cross-examine the complainant. The opposite party has not filed the carbon copy of the receipt said to have been issued by him to the complainant stating that post card size prints were to be issued to the complainant at a cost of Rs. 3.50 ps. each. The complainant relied upon Ex. A3 carton containing the film to show that what he entrusted to the opposite party is a film for colour slides and not a film for colour prints. The opposite party does not dispute that the film entrusted to him by the complainant is the film for colour slides and Ex. A3 is the carton containing the said film. WE find on one side of the carton the following printed matter : "Kodak 36 Exp. Film EKTACHROME Elite Film for Colour Slides Film Pour Diapositives Couleur Films Para Diapositivos."

WE have also perused the printed matter on the film itself. It reads as follows : "Process E-6 Kodak EKTACHROME Elite 35 mm Film For Colour Slides EB 36.100/21. EB / 36 Exp."

In view of the printed matter on the film as well as on the carton and in view of the fact that the complainant went round some places and took number of photos with regard to vegetation, water samplings etc., in different areas and as the film is for colour slides it is difficult to accept the contention of the opposite party that the complainant asked the opposite party to give post card size colour prints and the complainant has not given instructions to him to process the film as a film for colour slides. It is also difficult to accept the other contention of the opposite party that when he issued a booking receipt stating that post card size prints were to be delivered to the complainant at a cost of Rs. 3.50 ps. per each post card size print the complainant has not made any protest and therefore he was under the impression that the film was given to him for processing the film for colour prints as usual since the complainant denied that the opposite party issued such receipt and the opposite party has not filed the carbon copy of the said receipt. The next contention of the opposite party is that the processing of a film as a film for colour slides takes a longer time and that because he delivered back the processed film to the complainant within a short time after its entrustment it has to be concluded that the complainant has not given instructions to process the film as a film for colour slides. We are not inclined to accept this contention since there is no material to show that the processing of a film for colour slides takes a longer time and it cannot be completed within a short time like 1 hours or 2 hours. The further contention of the opposite party is that the equipment required for processing a film for colour slides is not available either with him or any where in Andhra Pradesh and in the circumstances the complainant should not have gained an impression that the opposite party would process his film as a film for colour slides. We do not find any substance in this contention because there is no evidence from the opposite party to show that the equipment required for processing the film as a film for colour slides is not available in Andhra Pradesh and as the mere fact that the opposite party does not possess the required equipment for processing the colour slides does not lead to an inference that the complainant entrusted the film only for the purpose of processing as a film for colour prints and not as a film for colour slides. As stated above we find the printed matter on one side of Ex. A3 carton and also on the film itself indicating that the film is for colour slides and E6 process is required. The opposite party is running a colour laboratory with an automatic machine and he is holding out himself as an experienced developer of photo films. In the circumstances he is expected to verify the nature of film entrusted to him before processing the same whether or not there are clear instructions from the concerned parties as to what he has to do with the film entrusted to him and he cannot turn round and say that without seeing the printed matter on the carton or on the film he fed the film into the automatic machine in his laboratory and that he is not liable for any damage done to the said film. The fact that the opposite party has not cared either to see the instructions on the carton or on the film or verified the nature of the film before feeding the same into the automatic machine clearly spells out that the opposite party did his job negligently and there is deficiency in service on his part notwithstanding the fact that the opposite party does not possess the equipment or machine required for processing the film as a film for colour slides. In the circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum is right in holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum we are of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Forum is not excessive in view of the fact that the complainant having gone round some places took 36 photos of vegetation, field surveys, water samplings and scientific samplings subjecting himself to inconvenience and all the photos he has taken were spoiled due to the negligence of the opposite party and the entire research work the complainant has done has gone waste and the complainant was also subjected to mental agony and inconvenience. Accordingly we hold that there is no basis to interfere with the order of the District Forum. In the result, the appeal fails and is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed. ______________