SAHITYIK MUNCH HISAR Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hisar dismissing the complaint preferred by them.

(2.) We are firmly of the view that the order under appeal has to be upheld and it is, therefore, unnecessary to over elaborate the matter in an order of affirmance. It suffices to mention that the appellant-Sopan Sahityik Munch had organised a Kavi Sammelan at Hisar on the 28th of March, 1992 and the respondents were engaged to take snaps and photographs/making a photo film thereof. The occasion was covered by as many as 36 snaps and the grievance in the complaint was that 23 out of them were found damaged or defective. It was further alleged that the sound in the Video Cassette was entirely unsatisfactory and the grievance was that the appellant-Munch had suffered irreparable loss and the relief sought was the refund of Rs.400/- paid to the respondent and compensation in all to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.

(3.) On notice being issued, the respondent raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the complaint, to which reference is now unnecessary. On merits, it was admitted that his services were engaged to photographically cover the Sammelan with stills and a cassette. The same were duly delivered to the appellants and accepted by them after seeing the photographs and playing the video cassette entirely to their satisfaction. However, the appellants failed to pay the balance of the charges due to him and as a counter-blast a false and frivolous complaint has been filed to evade the payment. The appellant-Munch reiterated their stand by way of replication and it would appear that the case was decided on the pleadings supported by an affidavit on behalf of the complainant and affidavits of Balbir Singh, respondent, Vijay Kumar, Suresh and Ramesh in rebuttal. The District Forum recorded that Shri Sailani, President of the Munch had not chosen to attach or produce any photographs and the defective video film with the complaint or with the replication. However, on the 10th of September, 1993 an application was made to the District Forum to get the photographs and the video cassette checked from an expert. However, the District Forum declined that request on the ground that the burden lay on the complainants themselves to establish the requisite defects.