Photographer Held Liable For Failing To Deliver Photographs And Videos: Medak District Commission Orders Refund And Compensation
The Medak District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench presided by Sri Gajjala Venkateswarlu (President) along with Sri. Makyam Vijay Kumar (Member) partly allowed a consumer complaint against a photographer for failing to deliver photographs and videos from a grandchild's first birthday celebration. For this the complainant paid Rs. 57,000/- to the photographer. This led...
The Medak District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench presided by Sri Gajjala Venkateswarlu (President) along with Sri. Makyam Vijay Kumar (Member) partly allowed a consumer complaint against a photographer for failing to deliver photographs and videos from a grandchild's first birthday celebration. For this the complainant paid Rs. 57,000/- to the photographer. This led to significant distress for the complainant, who lost out on the treasured memories of the special event due to the non-delivery of the promised album and videos.
The Commission ruled that the photographer's failure to deliver the promised photographs and videos amounted to unfair trade practices and deficiency in service. As a result, they directed the photographer to refund the entire amount of Rs. 57,000/- at 9% interest, along with Rs. 5,000/- compensation for mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation costs.
Brief Facts
Maddikunta Kistaiah (Complainant) engaged a photographer for his granddaughter's first birthday celebration on March 19, 2023, at Patanchervu. He paid Rs. 57,000/- in two installments, Rs. 10,000/- on February 9, 2023, and Rs. 47,000/- on April 10, 2023. Maddikunta requested the photographs and videos from the celebration but faced repeated delays from the photographer. Despite reminders and a letter sent on July 15, 2023, asking for the delivery of the album and videos within two weeks, the photographer failed to provide them even after four months had passed from the notice date. This non-delivery caused the complainant mental distress and resulted in the loss of precious memories from the grandchild's special occasion. Consequently, Maddikunta filed a consumer complaint.
Observations of the Commission
The Commission acknowledged that despite repeated requests, the photographer delayed delivering the album and videos of the celebration, causing the complainant significant mental and economic distress. The Commission found the photographer's actions of not providing the photographs and videos constituted unfair trade practices and a deficiency in services. They directed the photographer to refund the entire amount of Rs. 57,000/- with 9% interest from the payment date and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation, along with Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation costs. The photographer was given 30 days to comply with the order, failing which the interest rate would increase to 12% per annum.
Case Title: Maddikunta Kistaiah vs Akhil Jonnadula, Aj Photography
CC.No.43 of 2023
Click Here To Read/Download The Order