Bride Gets Compensation After Studio Replaces Booked Wedding Photographer [Read Order]

Hassan: The Hassan District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held a wedding photography studio guilty of deficiency in service for deputing its team in place of the photographer the client had specifically engaged, without telling her, and for the team’s late arrival at key wedding events.

It awarded ₹25,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 as litigation costs, rejecting the rest of the complaint.

A Bench of President Chanchala C.M. and Lady Member Anupama R., with the order delivered by Ms. Anupama, was hearing a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Dr. Chinmayi M against Karthik Singh, proprietor of Karthik Singh Photography, and Mrs. Sharvari, his associate. She had sought a refund of ₹1,40,000, ₹1 lakh for mental agony, incidental and travel expenses, and a declaration that the studio’s demand of ₹32,000 was illegal.

The complainant said she booked the studio on 28.11.2024 for ₹2,05,000, including candid and cinematic engagement video, after seeing its Instagram portfolio, and paid ₹1,99,200 the same day, including ₹16,200 for travel. She alleged that Mr. Singh had promised to attend key events personally, but instead sent subcontracted photographers who arrived late and missed bridal home rituals, the bridal procession and the groom’s entry, then asked relatives to recreate them. She also alleged that the engagement photographs were substandard, that the LED screen was wrongly placed, that there was no drone coverage, and that delivery of the engagement video, photographs and album was delayed by nearly a year, forcing her family to travel about 200 km twice.

The opposite parties denied all allegations. They said the persons who attended were members of Mr. Singh’s regular team under his supervision, with no outsourcing, that the complainant’s make-up took long and her parents did not allow make-up photographs, and that a drone inside a low-ceilinged hall with beams, fans and a crowd would be unsafe. They contended that the complaint was made to avoid paying the balance of ₹22,000, and that no expert report was filed. The complainant deposed as CW-1 with Exhibits C-1 to C-17, and Mr. Singh as RW-1 with Exhibits R-1 to R-6.

The Commission recalled that the Act defines deficiency to include any fault, imperfection or inadequacy in the manner of performance undertaken under a contract, and any negligent act or omission causing loss to the consumer. It then held:

“Sending an assistant instead of the specifically booked photographer can amount to a deficiency in service.”

The Commission reasoned that in contracts for creative or specialised skills the identity of the service provider is often the reason for the contract, so substitution without consent is a breach, and that the studio should have disclosed this at the outset or informed the client beforehand if the photographer could not attend. Since the opposite parties admitted that their own team had been deputed, it found that deficiency established. It also referred to a District Commission decision in Jayaprakash v. Zero Gravity Photography (2023), which penalised an agency for sending interns instead of the promised team.

The WhatsApp chats (Ex. C-10) showed the opposite parties admitting that assistants were late; the complainant asked them to arrive at 2.30 PM, but they reached at 3.40 PM, which the Commission called a clear case of negligence, given the many rituals in Indian weddings.

The other allegations failed on proof. On quality, the Commission said one cannot expect a photographer to make everyone correct jewellery and make-up for every snap, and that no expert opinion or technical report was filed. On the make-up photographs, there was no document supporting the complainant’s allegation and the Commission “cannot come to the conclusion” on assumption. On the drone, the complainant’s affidavit did not say she had availed that service, and she gave no evidence that the hall had sufficient ceiling height. The Commission added that she had already received the photographs, hard disk, album and videos.

Allowing the complaint in part, it directed the opposite parties to pay ₹25,000 for deficiency in service, mental agony, negligence and delay, and ₹10,000 as litigation expenses, within 45 days, failing which the entire amount carries 10% interest per annum until realisation.

Appearances:

For the Complainant: Dr. Chinmayi M, in person.

For the Opposite Parties: Sri G.N., Advocate.

Case Title: Dr. Chinmayi M vs. Karthik Singh & Anr., Consumer Complaint No. 64/2026

[Read Order]