DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member C.C.No.89/2007 Firoz Babu.K.M, S/o.Mohammed Kutty, Karanchery House, Nedumpura.P.O, Thrissur. - Complainant (By Adv.Satheesh Kumar.A.N) Vs Ajmeer Advertisers, Viswam Building, Main Road, P.O.Nemmara, Palakkad – 678 508. - Opposite party (By Adv.P.Gopinath) O R D E R By Smt.Seena.H, President Case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Induced by an advertisement published in the Malayala Manorama daily dt.31/12/2006, complainant approached the opposite party who is conducting a marriage bureau. After several visits to the opposite party bureau and repeated phone calls, opposite party stated that the said party was interested in proceeding with the case of the complainant and asked the complainant to register in the bureau immediately. Complainant registered with the opposite party paying an amount of Rs.500/-. Complainant is aggrieved by the fact that after registration, no service was rendered by the opposite party. Even though complainant responded to several advertisements published by opposite party, opposite party never replied. According to the complainant, the act of the opposite party amounts to clear deficiency of service and complainant claims an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation. Opposite party filed version with the following contentions. Opposite party admits that the complainant approached the opposite party for getting a good bride. Complainant was informed by the opposite party that the proposals will be given to him and if the proposals are acceptable to both parties alliance can be worked out. Opposite party has not explained the modus operandi of contacting the brides people. The opposite party also denies the fact they have not given any proposals to the complainant for marriage alliance. In fact the opposite party had given five proposals to the complainant out of which two were acceptable to the complainant and three were rejected by the brides people. Opposite party also informed the complainant at the time of registration that, the service involved in the case has got dimension beyond the control of the opposite party as the alliance are made only on the concurrence of mind of both parties and cannot be decided by the opposite party. As per the receipt issued by the opposite party it is clearly stated that the opposite party will not refund the registration charge. Issues for consideration are; 1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? 2. If so, what is the relief and cost? Point No.1 & 2: The definite case of the complainant is that even after acceptance of the registration fee, opposite party has not rendered any service to the complainant. Receipt issued for registration is marked as Ext.A2. Complainant induced by the advertisement of the opposite party in the Malayala Manorama daily has approached the opposite party. Paper cutting of the said daily marked as Ext.A1. According to the opposite party they have given five proposals to the complainant out of which two proposals were not acceptable to the complainant and three of them were rejected by the brides people. This contention is not supported by any evidence. Opposite party has not taken any steps to cross examine the complainant to establish the said facts. No contra evidence is produced by the opposite party. It is true that service involved in the said case are beyond the control of the opposite party and it can only be concluded on the concurrence of both parties to the marriage alliance. But opposite party ought to have offered suitable proposals to the complainant or at least replied for the queries of the complainant. This act itself amounts to deficiency of service. In the said circumstance we do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of the complainant. In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) registration fee along with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of communication of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation. Pronounced in the open court on this the 3rd day of January, 2009 Sd/- Seena.H President Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K Member Appendix Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 – Paper cutting of Malayala Manorama daily dtd.31/12/2006 Ext.A2 – Receipt dt.11/04/2007 issued by opposite party Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party Nil Cost (allowed) Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only)
......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
