State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Anchal Goyal & Another vs Narender Kumar Sharma on 26 February, 2026
SC/5/A/104/2014 Dr. Achal Goyal & Anr. 26.02.2026
Vs.
Sh. Narendra Kumar Sharma
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND,
DEHRADUN
Date of Admission : 25.06.2014
Date of Final Hearing : 27.01.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026
SC/5/A/104/2014
1. Dr. Achal Goyal S/o Late Sh. Shobha Ram
2. Sh. Sugam Goyal S/o Dr. Achal Goyal
Both R/o Mangal Bhawan, 5B Vishnu Garden,
Gandhi Ashram wali Gali, P.O. Gurukul Kangri, Kankhal
Tehsil & District Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Chetan Jain, Advocate)
.....Appellants
VERSUS
Sh. Narendra Kumar Sharma S/o not known
P.C. Colour Lab, Opposite Prem Nagar Ashram
Ranipur More, Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Saurabh Rana, Advocate)
.....Respondent
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President
Mr. C.M. Singh, Member
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 22.05.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 241 of 2013 styled as Dr. Achal Goyal & Anr. vs. Sh.1
SC/5/A/104/2014 Dr. Achal Goyal & Anr. 26.02.2026 Vs. Sh. Narendra Kumar Sharma Narendra Kumar Sharma, wherein and whereby the complaint was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainants engaged the opposite party - photographer for comprehensive photography and videography of all the marriage related function starting from 23.11.2012 up to farewell ceremony including all the rituals like Mandha, Ladies Sangeet etc. It was further agreed that the photography and videography would be carried out on dated 24.11.2012 with one Crane, four Plasma, twelve Posters, two videos and one Studio. The total consideration for such services was fixed at Rs. 40,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- was paid in advance and the remaining was to be paid to the opposite party. However, despite the aforesaid agreement, no photography and videography was carried out on dated 23.11.2012 during Mandha function and Ladies sangeet and no representative of the opposite party remained present at the marriage ceremony for the said purpose. On dated 24.11.2012 there was no photography and videography was carried out by the opposite party. In addition, although the agreement provided for installation of Plasma, Studio and Posters, the same were not arranged. Aggrieved by the deficient service and after reviewing the photography and videography provided by the opposite party, the complainants held dis- satisfied. Consequently, a legal notice was served upon the opposite party, however no remedy was provided by the opposite party and the complainants were constrained to file the complaint before the District Commission.
3. The opposite party denied all the allegations made by the complainants and contended that the complainants have not filed the complaint case on true and correct facts. It has been asserted that the answering opposite party duly carried out the photography and videography 2 SC/5/A/104/2014 Dr. Achal Goyal & Anr. 26.02.2026 Vs. Sh. Narendra Kumar Sharma of the marriage ceremony in accordance with the instructions of the complainants. It was further alleged that the present complaint has been instituted with ulterior motive of exerting undue pressure and evading payment of the balance outstanding amount. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainants is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2014 wherein and whereby the complaint was dismissed.
5. On having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, an appeal has been submitted by the complainants as appellants before us alleging that the impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2014 is based on surmises and conjectures; the District Commission has wrongly held that appellants have not adduce any evidence in support of its advance payment of Rs. 10,000/-; the Commission below has also wrongly held that the appellants did not adduce any documentary evidence regarding payment of remaining amount of Rs. 30,000/-against usual practice of handing over photographs and videography after excepting consideration. The District Commission has wrongly held that there is no written agreement in support of averments of the appellants to support statement of the appellants is against evidence on record because on the other side of visiting card respondent in his own hand writing has written specific work under taken by it and the advance and remaining amount which is a vital piece of evidence. It is wrongly held by the District Commission that the complaint of the appellants is based on misleading facts which is hypothetical keeping in view specific averments in complaint supported by documentary evidence and affidavit and has wrongly dismissed the complaint of the appellants. The Commission below 3 SC/5/A/104/2014 Dr. Achal Goyal & Anr. 26.02.2026 Vs. Sh. Narendra Kumar Sharma his misconceived evidence on record and has not interpreted correctly evidence on record. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be allowed.
6. Learned counsel Sh. Chetan Jain for the appellants as well as learned counsel Sh. Saurabh Rana for respondent has appeared. Dr. Achal Goyal - appellant No. 1 has also appeared in person before this Commission.
7. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the respondent has not carried out the photography and videography as per terms and conditions of the agreement. He further stated that the complete consideration of Rs. 40,000/- was paid to the respondent, despite respondent has not provided photographs, video and album of the marriage ceremony.
9. Learned counsel for respondent has argued that respondent has already provided all the photographs and video to the appellants. It is further pleaded that the respondent has duly carried out the photography and videography of the marriage ceremony in accordance with the instructions of the appellants.
10. It is an admitted fact that an oral agreement made between the parties for photography and videography of the complete marriage ceremony. It is also admitted that the said agreement was fixed at Rs. 40,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- was given to the respondent in advance by the appellants on dated 26.08.2012. It is also admitted that a legal notice was served to the 4 SC/5/A/104/2014 Dr. Achal Goyal & Anr. 26.02.2026 Vs. Sh. Narendra Kumar Sharma respondent on dated 22.04.2013, which was replied by the respondent on dated 10.05.2013. .
11. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that both the parties agreed upon that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to be paid to the respondent for photography and videography and allied service of marriage ceremony of the appellants. On dated 06.04.2022, respondent admitted that he had obtained a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards photography and videography charges from the appellants and alleged that the appellants have failed to pay the remaining outstanding amount of Rs. 30,000/- to him. The appellants were directed to produce the receipt and documentary evidence regarding the payment of Rs. 30,000/- and the respondent was directed to produce photographs and album alongwith video of marriage. On dated 27.07.2022, the respondent has complied with the order and produced the photographs and album of marriage, however the appellants have failed to produce the receipt and documentary evidence regarding the payment of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent. Photographs and album of marriage were seen by this Commission and also by the learned counsel for the appellants, but the appellants have failed to produce the relevant document and proof of payment of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent. The matter was fixed for compromise on dated 10.08.2022. On the said date, the appellants again failed to produce the relevant documents and proof of payment of Rs. 30,000/- and further refused to accept the newly prepared photographs and album of the marriage. The appellants also declined to enter into compromise. The respondent said that he had incurred Rs. 20,000/- for preparation of new album and photographs. Accordingly, this Commission has directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent against the costs of photographs and album of marriage. The newly prepared album and photographs were kept in the Commission.
5SC/5/A/104/2014 Dr. Achal Goyal & Anr. 26.02.2026 Vs. Sh. Narendra Kumar Sharma Subsequently the appellants deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with the Commission which was thereafter handed over to the respondent.
12. Upon careful appreciation of the pleadings and evidence available on record, it is evident that both the parties had agreed upon the total consideration of Rs. 40,000/- for photography and videography services in connection with marriage ceremony of the appellants. It stands admitted that Rs. 10,000/- was paid in advance to the respondent while the appellants have consistently failed to produce any documentary proof and receipt to substantiate the payment of balance outstanding amount of Rs. 30,000/- despite repeated opportunities granted by this Commission.
13. We observed that the District Commission after appreciating the evidence available on record had categorically found that the appellants - complainants failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent - opposite party; the complaint appeared to have file primarily to avoid payment of Rs. 30,000/- outstanding amount to the respondent. The said findings are supported by material available on record and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in the impugned judgment. It is further noted that pursuant to the direction of this Commission, the respondent produced the album and photographs of the marriage ceremony, which was duly examined by this Commission, despite this the appellants declined to accept the same and refused to enter into compromise.
14. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and considering the findings of the District Commission, we are of the considered view that the District Commission has passed the impugned judgment and order properly and in accordance with law and the appeal is devoid of merits. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2014 passed 6 SC/5/A/104/2014 Dr. Achal Goyal & Anr. 26.02.2026 Vs. Sh. Narendra Kumar Sharma by the District Commission, Haridwar. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2014 passed by the District Commission, Haridwar is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs of the appeal. The appellants are at liberty to take possession of photographs and album kept in the custody of this Commission within a month from the date of this Judgment.
16. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 /2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. The copy of this order alongwith original record of the District Commission, Haridwar be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
17. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. C.M. Singh) Member Pronounced on: 26.02.2026 7