PER DR(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA,  MEMBER

             Succinctly put, on 27.1.2010 the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3,600/- with the OP being the registration charges for telling suitable match for her marriage.  Thereafter the complainant as well as her father contacted the OP several times for telling suitable match but no heed was paid to them which caused them harassment.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply the OP submitted that the complainant is not consumer qua it as the services were hired by her father.  It has been submitted that the amount of Rs.3,600/- was deposited by the father of the complainant and even all the documents were executed by him.  It has been pleaded that it was made clear to the father of the complainant that the amount of Rs.3,600/- was only received for making efforts by the OP in searching suitable match for his daughter (complainant), that the same was valid for a period of 3 months only and there was no guarantee in finalisation of the same.  It has been submitted that thereafter several efforts were made by the OP in order to match the particulars and kundli etc. of the complainant, who was a divorcee, with many boys and an advertisement was also published in The Tribune on 14.2.2010. The parents of the complainant were given the particulars of the suitable matches and meetings were also convened at the office of the OP.  Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the complainant in persona and proxy counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record. 

5.             The main contention of the complainant is that her parents hired the services of the OPs vide Annexure (now marked as C-1) by making payment of Rs.3600/- towards registration charges for finding a suitable match of her marriage on 27.01.2010(?) but, the OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and withheld the money illegally.

6.             Whereas the OPs had maintained that at the time of registration (Annexure OP-1) it was made clear to the father of the complainant that charges received as registration charges are for making efforts in searching a suitable match for his daughter Shikha, the contract was valid for a period of three months and no guarantee in finalization of the same was ever granted by the OPs.  They further stated that it was agreed by both the parties that in case suitable match is found, an amount of Rs.11000/- shall be taken by the OPs at the time of ring ceremony.  The OPs made it clear that the father of the complainant has also executed an affidavit Annexure OP-2 thereby agreeing all the terms and conditions of the OPs on 24.01.2010(?)

7.             The OPs submitted that they have made several efforts for the purpose; an advertisement was also placed in the leading newspaper Tribune on 14.02.2010 vide Annexure OP-3.  They have placed on record the family talking’s etc vide Annexure OP-4. Even the phone numbers and addresses of the suitable matches and the meetings were also convened at the office of the OPs between the parents of the complainant and the parents of the boys.  Even in one of the meeting  the parents of one boy named Anand Aggarwal were interested for the said marriage but the parents of the complainant lingered on the matter and that was never matured vide Annexure C-5.  As a matter of fact, the OPs made several efforts for sufficient efforts for matchmaking concerning the complainant in the specified time period of three months has been made. Though no guarantee was ever given to the father of the complainant in this regard, which is very much clear from the documents signed by the father of the complainant alongwith one witness namely Subash Gupta. Infact the father of the complainant after getting his daughter registered on 24.01.2010(?) with the OPs never waited for the expiry of three months period and filed the present complaint on 7.4.2010, whereas the expiry time of three months contract was till 23.4.2010.  Rest of the allegations have been vehemently denied by the OPs.

8.             In view of the above facts and evidence placed on file by both the parties, it has been observed that Annexure C-1 is the receipt of the OPs attached by the complainant dated 24.1.2010 instead of 27.1.2010, as contended by the complainant`s father, as is clear from the registration form Annexure OP-1 signed by the father of the complainant on which the date 24.1.2010 is very much clear.  Secondly Annexure OP-4 attached by the OPs reflected that several efforts were made by the OPs in this regard i.e. arranging meetings on various dates at various point of time and places and matching kundlies etc with many boys which shows that within a period of nearly two and a half months they have made several attempts to do their job.  Admittedly, without waiting for the expiry of the period of three months as was duly agreed by both the parties, the complainant has filed this complaint which is clear violation of the agreement.

9.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  There is no merit in the present case and the same is accordingly dismissed.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

                                  Sd/-                         Sd/-