Consumer court tells wedding photographer to pay bride ₹35k after his team arrives 70 minutes late to event

A district consumer court in Karnataka's Hassan recently directed a wedding photographer and his associate to pay ₹35,000 to a bride for failing to personally cover her wedding despite an alleged promise to do so and for sending a team of assistants who arrived late and missed important ceremonies [Chinmayi v. Karthik Singh].

The ruling was passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Hassan.

A bench comprising President Chanchala CM and Member Anupama R held that replacing a specifically engaged photographer with assistants without informing the client amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Commission explained that the identity and individual skills of a professional could be central to a client's decision to engage their services.

"In professional contracts involving creative or specialized skills like photography, medical procedures, or legal representation the identity and unique talent of the service provider are often the primary reason for the contract. Substituting that person with an assistant without the client's consent constitutes a direct breach of contract," it said.

The order was passed on October 17 in a complaint filed by Chinmayi M against Karthik Singh, proprietor of Karthik Singh Photography, and his associate Sharvari.

Chinmayi had engaged the photographer after viewing his Instagram portfolio, which showcased professional photography and videography services. The parties agreed to a package worth ₹2.05 lakh, including candid and cinematic videography for the engagement.

She paid ₹1,99,200, including ₹16,200 towards travel expenses.

According to the complaint, Singh had promised to personally photograph important ceremonies, including the engagement, wedding reception and wedding. However, he allegedly deputed other photographers without her consent.

The complainant alleged that the photographers were late by 70 minutes and missed several important moments, including rituals at the bride's home, the bridal procession accompanied by relatives and musicians, and the groom's arrival in a car.

She further alleged that the photographers subsequently asked the family to artificially recreate some of these moments.

The complaint also raised grievances concerning poorly edited videos, missing footage, non-use of drones, the placement of an LED screen and delays of nearly a year in delivering photographs, videos and the wedding album.

Singh denied the allegations and maintained that the photographers were members of his regular professional team, working under his supervision. He argued that the complainant had failed to establish any technical deficiencies in the work and was attempting to avoid paying an outstanding amount of ₹22,000.

The Commission, however, found that Singh had failed to fulfil his commitment to personally photograph the ceremonies.

The Commission held that photographers must inform clients of their inability to attend events, allowing alternative arrangements. WhatsApp conversations established that the photographer's assistants arrived 70 minutes late, missing important wedding rituals.

However, it rejected allegations concerning poor-quality photographs and the absence of drone coverage.

The Commission ultimately awarded the complainant ₹25,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses, to be payed by Singh and his associate.

The Commission added that the amount should be paid within 45 days of its order, failing which the amount would attract 10 per cent as annual interest until payment.

[Read Judgment]