Consumer Court Orders Wedding Photographer to Pay Bride ₹35,000 After Team Arrives 70 Minutes Late
The commission further observed that the photographer’ s failure to personally click pictures of the ceremonies also amounted to the breach of promise to the bride.
A Karnataka district consumer court has ordered a wedding photographer and his partner to compensate a bride ₹35,000 for failing to personally cover her wedding despite promising to do so, and for sending his team of assistants late for the ceremony and missing important rituals [Chinmayi v. Karthik Singh].
The order was passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Commission) in Hassan on October 17.
Justifying its order, the District Commission said that since a photographer was specifically engaged by the complainant, he could not send his assistants in his place without informing her. Such conduct, opined the bench headed by President Chanchala CM, amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
“The very identity of the professional you hire is important for contracting his services. One hires a photographer not anyone but a particular person known for his skills. The same can be said of doctors or lawyers… When you specifically contract someone, it is only that particular person who will provide the service. To send someone else in his place without even informing you is a violation of your contract with him,” the Commission said.
Chinmayi M had filed a complaint against photographer Karthik Singh, proprietor of Karthik Singh Photography (KSP) and his associate Sharvari. Singh had reportedly agreed to cover Chinmayi’s wedding after she viewed his Instagram page containing samples of his work. Singh offered photography and videography services and the two parties had agreed to the former’s ₹2.05 lakh package, which included candid photography and cinematic videography of the engagement ceremony.
After deducting the advance she had already paid, Chinmayi paid ₹1,99,200 to Singh, who accepted ₹16,200 as travel charges. Chinmayi’s complaint alleged that Singh agreed to cover specific ceremonies like the engagement, wedding reception and wedding ceremonies personally but “left her high and dry by deputing others in his place” without her knowledge or consent.
Chinmayi alleged that the photographers assigned to cover her wedding arrived late by 70 minutes and were consequently unable to cover “important moments” like rituals conducted at the bride’s residence, the bridal procession along with women relatives and musicians, and the arrival of the groom’s car.
She also alleged that the photographers later asked her family members to recreate some of these moments. Chinmayi further complained about edited videos of substandard quality, missing footage of important ceremonies, non-use of drones during the wedding, improper placement of an LED screen during the ceremony and delay of about one year in delivering photographs, videos and the wedding album.
Singh denied Chinmayi’s allegations and stated that his photographs clicked by his team of photographers working under him. Singh argued that Chinmayi did not prove any deficiency in his work on technical grounds and was “trying to escape from paying” ₹22,000 to him.
Disagreeing with Singh’s submission, the Commission said that the photographer “had promised to cover her marriage and wedding reception ceremonies personally”.
“If the photographer himself could not attend the ceremony, it was his duty to inform the complainant at the earliest so as to enable her to take alternative arrangements. Here, it is WhatsApp chat that proves that Singh’s assistants reached the wedding venue 70 minutes late and missed important rituals of the marriage,” the Commission added.
While allowing the complaint, the Commission dismissed Chinmayi’s claims about delivery of poor quality photographs and non-use of drones. The District Commission said that Singh and his partner shall pay Chinmayi ₹25,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 as cost towards litigation expenses.
Further adding, the Commission said that the duo shall make the payment within 45 days of receipt of the order, failing which they would be liable to pay 10 per cent as annual interest till the amount is paid.
