IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 272/2021 (filed on 10/11/2021)
Petitioner : Aneeshkumar K.
S/o. Ramakrishna Pilla
Kalappurayidathil House,
Kanam P.O. Vazhoor,
Changanacherry, Kottayam.
(Adv. Jolly James)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : The Proprietor,
Elite Matrimonial,
First Floor, ABG Tower,
Near Bus Stand, Thirur,
Pin- 676101. Malappuram.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Crux of the complaint is as follows:
Being attracted by the advertisement published by the opposite parties in Manorama daily the complainant contacted the opposite party. The opposite party informed the complainant that the bride is a resident of Changanssery and is a government employee. Thereafter the opposite party contacted the complainant over phone and informed that they had told to the parents of the bride and they are interested with the proposal. It was further informed to the complainant that they would send the details of the said bride to the complainant as V.P.L and complainant has to pay Rs.2000/- at the time of delivery of the V.P.L. As directed by the opposite party the complainant received the V.P.L. by paying Rs.2000/- along with Rs.100/- as commission. It is averred in the complaint that the V.P.L. does not contain the details of the bride who’s details were published by the opposite party in daily. When the complainant contacted the opposite party it was informed that it was due to a mistake and assured that they would send the details of the said bride through the whatsapp. However, the opposite party did not give the details of the said bride to the complainant as promised. It is averred in the complaint that the opposite party has adopted unfair trade practice by receiving Rs.2000/- from the complainant by publishing a misleading advertisement. Though the lawyers notice was caused by the complainant the opposite party did not return the money. According to the complainant due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant had suffered much mental agony and hardship. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3,600/- along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/.
Though the notice was duly served, the opposite party failed to appear before the commission and file version. Hence, opposite party was set ex-party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit A1 to A5.
On evaluation of complaint and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points
(1)Whether the complainant has succeed to prove unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and entitled for any reliefs?
The complainant, approached this commission alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on part a matrimonial marriage bureau, Elite Matrimonial, Thiroor. The complainant submits that opposite party having charged Rs.2,000/- for providing details of Nair bride aged 47 having government job and residing at Changanssery. Exhibit A1 is the Manorama daily dated 12-9-2021. On perusal of Exhibit A1 we can see that there was an advertisement as “\mbÀ bphXn 37, 9526320128 X\n¨p Xmakn¡p¶p. Kh¬saâv DZym-KØ, Unam³Un-Ã. Z¯p-am-hmw. Fsse-äv, XncqÀ 9539905929”. It is submitted by the complainant that though the opposite party send Exhibit A3 it did not contain the details of the bride as published by the opposite party. On perusal of exhibit A3, we cannot see any entry about the girl that was published by the opposite party in Exhibit A1. Exhibit A2 that is the postal cover in which Exhibit A3 is sent by the opposite party to the complainant. On perusal of Exhibit A2, we can see that it was a VPL for Rs.2000/-, which was sent by the opposite party to the complainant. Thus it is proved by Exhibit A2 that complainant had paid Rs.2000/- to the opposite party to receive Exhibit A3. Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainant has remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant. Opposite party has failed to provide the promised services to the complainant despite receiving the consideration amount of Rs.2,000/-.
Hence, we are of the opinion that opposite party is grossly deficient in service. We allow the complaint and direct Opposite party to refund Rs.2,000/- paid by the complainant to the Opposite party along with interest @ 9% per annum from the 10-11-2021 i.e. the date on which the complaint is filed till realization. Additionally, Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.
Opposite party is directed to pay the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the Opposite party shall become liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.15,000/- from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 12th day of August, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Manaorma daily dtd.12-09-2021
A2 – Postal cover addressed by opposite party to petitioner
A3- VPL information
A4 – Copy of lawyers notice dtd.22-09-21 to the opposite party
A5- Postal cover
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
j/3cs Assistant Registrar
