U K JAMSHID Vs. K V RATNAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE above appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Kozhikode dated 16. 12. 1999 in O. P. 547/1999. The complaint in O. P. 547/1999 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against appellant herein as opposite party. The case of the complainant is that his daughter's passport size photograph was taken from the studio of the opposite party and in spite of repeated requests neither the photograph nor its negative was given to him by the opposite party. Later a youngster of the locality was troubling his daughter with this photograph and the said photograph was taken from the said youngster by the Circle Inspector of Police, Balusseri and returned to the complainant. Complainant has claimed compensation for mental agony and prayed for return of the negative and photograph from the opposite party.

(2.) IT is contended by the appellant that the complainant did not take any such photograph of the daughter of the complainant on 20. 5. 1996 or on any other date and sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

(3.) WE heard the Counsel for the appellant and respondent in person and perused the records. Ext. P1 bill is in the name of the complainant and Ext. R1 is the counterfoil of the same. The complainant has relied on the Ext. P1 produced by him. The aforesaid Ext. P1 would show that the photograph was taken on 20. 10. 1998. The complainant could not produce any bill to substantiate the case as pleaded. There is no other bill from the side of the complainant to substantiate his case. The case of the complainant that he took photograph of his daughter from the studio of opposite party on 20. 5. 1996 cannot be believed or accepted. Ext. P1 would clearly show that the complainant had taken photograph on 20. 10. 1998. Moreover, the complainant has no such case that he had taken photograph of his daughter on 20. 10. 1998. Thus, the documentary evidence produced by the respondent/complainant is also of no avail to prove his case. The lower Forum has gone wrong in appreciating the evidence available on record especially Ext. P1 document produced by the complainant.