CASE NAME: DR. Ostin Oomachen & Dr. Kavya Santhosh v Piccolo Weddings & Mr. Frimer Basil Eldhose
CASE NUMBER: CC No. 163/2025
COURT: Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayamm
DATE: 26 February 2026
QUORUM: Sri. Manulal V.S. (President), Smt. Bindhu R. (Member), Sr. K.M.Anto (Member)
FACTS:
The issue is between Piccolo Weddings and a couple, doctors by profession, who signed an agreement with Piccolo Weddings as Wedding Photography and Videography Service Providers of Kochi. The complainants were married on 19.05.2024 and had entered into engagement with the opposite parties as a result of their satisfaction with the images of photos and reels which were posted on the vendor’s Instagram page. Consequent to mutual discussions, they chose the “Bride and Groom Side Package”, the cost of which was ₹95,000, which included candid photography with creative cinematography on the wedding eve and wedding day, function photography, helicam photography on the wedding day, wedding albums, soft copies of photographs & raw video footage, wedding reels, wedding highlight video and Story USBs. The complainants paid ₹10,000 as advance on 03.03.2024 and ₹70,000 on the wedding day, totalling ₹80,000. However, the parties concerned did not comply with a number of obligations agreed upon: the helicam service wasn’t provided without preceding intimation, the candid photographer wasn’t present at the bride’s home on the wedding day, there was a problem with file recognition of the raw footage from the wedding evening, the marriage highlight video was submitted only on November 20, 2024, after several reminders, and the marriage story USB, which had been submitted as evidence before the Commission, could not be opened. What was provided was also found to be seriously deficient, as important rituals were missing, e.g. the ‘Madhuram Veppu’, videos were poorly edited, and important photographs were not captured. Although notice had been published in Janayugam daily on 22.09.2025, parties to the case failed to appear before Commission Furthermore, the opposite parties neglected the opportunity to submit a written statement. The case proceeded ex-parte on the evidence of the complainants.
ISSUES:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- What reliefs can be granted?
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Indian Contract Act, 1872
- Sec.39 : Failure to perform promise in a contract
- Sec. 73 : Compensation for loss or damage
- Sec. 75 : Compensation to a party rescinding a contract
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
- Sec. 35 : Filling of Complaint before the Consumer Commission
- Sec.38(3)(b) : Power of the Commission to proceed ex parte where the opposite party fails to appear or file a written version
ARGUMENTS:
COMPLAINANTS:
The complainants said despite making payments of ₹80,000, the opposite parties have not fulfilled some of the services they had promised like helicam coverage, bride-side incident coverage, reels and others. The highlight video was late (6 months), important footage was lost due to technical problems and the Wedding Story USB was corrupted. They also said that the photo editing and absence of major moments of the wedding were a problem. The deceptions led to stock losses and grave mental torment, they argued, which should trigger a refund, a settlement and legal fees.
RESPONDENTS:
Despite due notice the parties concerned did not appear or provide their written statements. Leaving the complainant’s evidence was un-argued.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
First the Commission considered documentary evidence on record. Exhibit A2 set out the exact extent of the agreed package, and Exhibit A1 a copy of the vendor’s final payment bill showed that deductions were made for the helicam service, which has not actually been provided, of ₹4,900 and ₹5,000 respectively. This was regarded by the Commission as an admission by the other concerned parties of the failure in the performance of the helicam component. However, the Commission pointed out that the USB drive submitted as MO1 could not be opened, which further supported the complainants’ claim of defective and corrupted deliverables. Based on such circumstances, the Commission assumed that the uncontroverted pieces of evidence and pleadings of the complainants were to be acceded to. It concluded that both parties “failed to comply with their commitments on several issues: (1) they did not deliver some items; (2) they delivered certain items incompletely or inaccurately; and (3) they delayed the delivery of certain items unnecessarily. The Commission also noted the emotional aspect of a wedding document, noting that complainants wished for a beautiful photo and video-like chronicle of their marriage, for which they paid their hard earned currency. An inability to capture those moments that can never be forgotten was considered as mental anguish, if not a financial hardship, deserving of restitution.
JUDGEMENT :
The complaint was allowed in its entirety. All the issues were answered in favor of the complainants, and the opposite parties were directed, as follows:
- To the complainants, the opposite parties are hereby directed to pay ₹80,000 (Rupees eighty thousand only) to the complainants within 30 days of receipt of this order or interest shall run at 9% from date of this order till the amount is paid.
- Opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000 (Rupees two lakh fifty thousand only) for mental agony and hardship in 30 days or before or shall bear interest at 9% per annum from date of this order till realization.
- The other parties are also directed to pay ₹10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) as cost of litigation.
The entire sum was allotted to be paid as ₹3,40,000. On-going Interlocutory Applications were also disposed of. Where there are pending Interlocutory Applications, these were dislodged as well.
CONCLUSION :
The Commission once again reminded the society that professional service contracts are not just business assurances, but binding obligations. Ironically, when wedding photography service fails in an irreparable way, compensation needs to not simply be monetary but likewise emotional. Failure of the vendor to provide agreed services, loss of footage, and delayed delivery, as well as his absence from proceedings gave rise to an unfavorable inference. The Commission also considered it an admission of non-performance if it deducted the charges paid on the vendor’s BILL. In its judgment, the court pointed out that free consumer protection law applies to human experiences, not just commercial deals, and that an award of ₹3.4 lakh, against a contract valued at ₹80,000, reflects this.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY : ARNAV NAIK
Read the judgement copy below:
