SANTOSH KASAR vs AWADESH VISHWAKARMA

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 3.10.2002 in Complaint No. 294/2002 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) directing the opposite party/respondent to refund the advance of Rs. 1,000/- received by him as advance besides he is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for mental harassment and cost of the complaint.

ACCORDING to the averment in the complaint, the complainant was to be married on 24.5.2002 and had given contract for Video shooting and photography of the various ceremonies of marriage to the respondent, for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/-. Out of which Rs. 1,000/- were paid as advance. However, the respondent did not take photographs and did not do video shooting of the marriage ceremonies properly and in time. Respondent in his written version averred that the amount of Rs. 2,000/- was not adequate for the job of video shooting and photography and, therefore, he did not hand over the photographs to the complainant. It was also averred that there was no agreement between the parties and that the dispute between the parties arose because the complainant wanted to forcibly take away from the respondent photographs of the marriage ceremony. District Forum in the impugned order held that there was an agreement between the parties under which the respondent had undertaken to do photography and video shooting. It was also held that the respondent did not perform the above work as per agreement. It was accordingly held that there was deficiency in service by the respondent and compensation as above was awarded.

Learned Counsel for the appellant was heard. The respondent who was present in person was also heard. Record was perused.

THE complainant/appellant in this appeal has raised a grievance that compensation awarded by the District Forum is inadequate considering the damage and inconvenience caused to him and in view of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. We consider that his grievance is legitimate. It appears that the respondent did not do the job as per agreement between the parties. According to him, respondent wanted to forcibly take away the photographs taken by him in the marriage ceremony which contradicts his version that there was no agreement between the parties. It is, therefore, clear that not only the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 1,000/- but he is also entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for the loss, harassment and inconvenience caused to him. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is modified as below: "Opposite party/respondent shall refund Rs. 1,000/- received as advance from the complainant and shall also pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant/appellant, besides paying cost of the complaint as ordered by the District Forum. The respondent shall also pay to the complainant/appellant cost of this appeal, which is quantified at Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only. Appeal allowed.