WAHEED AHMED KHAN Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein filed a complaint before the District Forum, Hyderabad claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, as the opposite party who was engaged to cover the complainant's marriage ceremony by Video delivered defective tape in which only few minutes function was videographed.

(2.) The complainant's case is that on 25.5.1991, on request, the opposite party visited the residence of the complainant at Jambagh and B. Ramesh Babu has shown the venue of the marriage to the opp. party and the father of the complainant gave an advance of Rs.300/- to the opposite party by taking a receipt Ex. A-l. The next day i. e. on 26.5.1991 the opp. party sent two assistants with Video camera to videograph the marriage. But when he delivered the cassette to the complainant, most of the cassette was found to be blank, except the last portion of the function. This according to the complainant is due to opposite party not taking proper care to check up whether the Video camera is functioning properly or not or the assistants sent by him do not know how to properly cover the function. Due to the negligence of the opposite party, the complainant was deprived of re-experiencing the thrill and happiness of the marriage function for ever. Therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite party.

(3.) In the counter, the opposite party totally denied that he was engaged to videograph the marriage function, that he visited the complainant's house or the venue of the marriage or that he videographed the marriage.