DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 11th day of April 2023
Filed on: 08/11/2017
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C C NO 442/2017
COMPLAINANT
C.S. Abdul Sammad,Nehar, 4/281, Pathirakkattukavu Road, N. Kalamassery, Ernakulam-683 104.
(By Adv.V.Balakrishna Kartha, Broadway onclave, Broadway, Ernakulam, Kochi-31)
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Kerala Matrimony, Marriage Consultant, 1136/D1-2 Floor, Chammany Towers, Kochi-17, represented by its manager.
(o.p rep. by Adv.Ashok B Shenoy)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant approached the opposite party for getting a suitable girl for their son Sri. Shiblin, who is employed abroad. At the time of discussion, the Opposite Party has made the complainant to believe that they can manage to get a suitable bride for the complainant's son within a limited period of time. It is also stated that they have a wide range of branches and hence they can find out a suitable bride. The complainant made it clear that the bride should be selected within a specific time since the complainant's son is abroad and he will not stay in Kerala for a long time for selection. The opposite party assured that they will arrange a bride for the complainant's son within a short time. Believing their words and as requested by the opposite party the complainant registered with the opposite party as Matrimony ID to 3100562 and paid a Registration Fee of Rs. 2,700/- as per Receipt No. 1256 dated 31.3.2016. Believing the offer of the opposite party, the complainant waited for 3 months but the opposite party failed to get a selection of the bride. Hence the complainant again met the opposite party and explained the immediate necessity of the matter. Again, as advised by them, the complainant remitted Rs. 2700/- this was also a failure, and all the understandings failed. On understanding that the complainant is disappointed for not getting a suitable selection, one Anoop, the representative of the opposite party met the complainant 3 times and gave a number of offers and made the complainant believe that Elite Gold Package will be better for the complainant and made assurance that the complainant's son will get a suitable bride within a short time and compelled to join this package. Though the complainant denied this offer the first time, he pursued and compelled the complainant to join the scheme and agreed that under this scheme the complainant's son will get a suitable selection. Believing his words, the complainant accepted the Elite Gold Package as registered and 0936 dated 27.7.2016. Even after 4 months, for which the complainant paid Rs. 45,000/-. The opposite party failed to find out a suitable bride for the complainant's son even after the specified period. The complainant’s son came from abroad and after spending a considerable amount of money the opposite party failed to keep its word. By compulsion and impracticable offers the opposite party succeeded to make the complainant to get enrolled in the scheme "Elite Gold". The opposite party succeeded in cheating the complainant by giving impracticable and false offers. This complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 23.3.2017 but the opposite party has not issued any reply to the notice. The complainants had approached the commission seeking an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 50,400/- (Rs. 45,000 + 2,700+ 2700) with interest by way of compulsory remittance of fees, to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for suffering and mental agony due to the unfair trade practices of the opposite party.
2) Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice and filed a version.
3) VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
The entire transaction between the customer and the company is purely a contractual one and both parties are bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the Registration Form. It is incorrect and false as also misleading to say that on 31.3.2016, the complainant approached the opposite party. As a matter of fact, the complainant had on visiting the opposite party's website, "keralamatrimony.com", registered as a free user and created a profile of his son on the said website, free of cost, of his own, on 27.9.2015, under the system generated unique ID Number 3190562. Later, on 7.10.2015, he availed of paid services under "Classic 3 months package' through the aforesaid website itself, on payment of Rs.2,700/-; and then on 31.03.2016, he renewed the aforesaid services under "Classic 3 months package' by payment of the further sum of Rs.2700/- through the same website. Then, on 29.7.2016, the complainant availed of paid services under the "Elite Matrimony package' for 3 months, on payment of Rs.45,000/- under Elite ID EM183768, through the opposite party's aforesaid website itself. The complainant had subscribed to the aforesaid packages, duly understanding the services provided thereunder and subscribing to the terms and conditions as to the packages thereof and services rendered thereunder, by subscribing to the opposite thereby agreeing to the terms of Party's website, keralamatrimony.com and thereby agreeing to the terms and conditions contained therein, which is an 'electronic record' as per the provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 and rules thereunder. In fact, the complainant had subscribed to the "Elite Matrimony' package, fully knowing that does not guarantee a marriage within the service period; that the opposite party's obligation under the service thereof is only to search, shortlist profiles that match his preferences and later share such profiles; with the complainant being the choice maker and decision maker to choose such shared profiles that he may think would be a prospective life partner for his son which suits his requirements. The complainant also very well knew that the role of the Relationship Manager is restricted and limited to searching for matching profiles and sharing the data/information with the member as appearing in the database of the company, until such time the subscription is valid or until request made by him. All throughout, due services have been provided to the complainant, as per his due entitlement in terms of the respective packages subscribed to by him. Services under the "Elite Matrimony" package were afforded to the complainant from 29.7.2016 until 02.12.2016; though the actual service period was from 29.7.2016 to 29.10.2016. The op has never stated or represented to the complainant that they would assuredly manage to get a suitable bride for the complainant's son within a limited period of time or a short time. The complainant had availed the aforementioned services from the website of the opposite party, as aforesaid, and in no way had the opposite party misled or misrepresented the complainant or compelled the complainant to avail of their services. The complainant had of his own, after reading the terms and conditions of the services offered by the opposite party through their website, displayed in the website itself; availed of the services thereof. As many as 30 profiles were served to the complainant and more than 10 profiles were followed up by the complainant from their side. As many as 10 meetings out of the aforesaid profiles were also arranged in favour of the complainant. During the last month of service, the complainant had not been showing very good interest in the profiles sent, as reportedly by then, the complainant's son was already engaged, with his marriage having been finalized. In no way has the opposite party committed any breach of the services towards the complainant under the packages in terms of which he had availed the services of the opposite party.
5). Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 3 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-3.
Exhibit A-1: True Copy of Receipt No. SOKE-02B002- 0936 for Rs.45,000/- from matrimony.com dated 27.07.2016.
Exhibit A-2: True Copy of Receipt No. 1256 from matromony.com dated 31.03.2016.
Exhibit A-3: Copy of Lawyer Notice issued to the Opposite Party Dated 23.03.2017.
6) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
7) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant produced a copy of cash receipts issued by the opposite party to the complainants (Exhibit A-1 and A-2). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
The above case is filed by the complainant for compensation for damages towards no suitable match found despite payment.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted the complaint has registered with the opposite party for selecting a bride for his son within 3 months. Sri. Anoop, the representative of the opposite party has met the complainant 3 times and was compelled to join the "Elite Gold Scheme" and he agreed that a bride will be found for the son of the complainant within 3 months. The opposite party failed to comply with his agreement and promises. The profiles forwarded by the opposite party were not as suggested by the complainant and the opposite party failed to carry out his promise. The opposite party failed to fulfill the requirement of the opposite party within the prescribed period. The 10 profiles uploaded by the opposite party were totally different as not even a single profile met the requests of the complainant. The complainant issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 23.03.2017 (Exhibit A-3) but they have not responded. The argument that the opposite party has not received the notice has not been proved by the opposite party with the support of any evidences.
The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted the "Elite Matrimony' package to be guaranteeing results within a short period and assuring the complainant’s son will get a suitable bride and compelled him to join the scheme and agree that complainant's son will get a suitable selection; are all false and incorrect. No such guarantee or assurances have been made by the opposite party or any of the officials or staff of the opposite party’s company. The opposite party never compelled the complainant to join the "Elite Gold" scheme. The opposite party has never given any impracticable or false offers nor cheated the complainant. The opposite party had not made any assurances and guarantees at all to the complainant. The opposite party or their officials have never made any false claims, promises, assurances, or representations to the complainant. The complainant had of his own subscribed to the schemes of the opposite party, after fully becoming aware of the terms and conditions thereunder. As a matter of fact, due services in terms of the aforementioned packages availed by the complainant were duly made available to the complainant.
The opposite party also stated in their version that “As many as 30 profiles were served to the complainant and more than 10 profiles were followed up by the complainant from their side. As many as 10 meetings out of the aforesaid profiles were also arranged in favour of the complainant.” But the opposite party was not prepared to prove this claim by producing documents or conducting a cross-examination of the complainant.
The complainant availed the services of the matrimonial firm and paid the requisite service charges for generating his profile, providing profiles of candidates with complete details, and arranging meetings/conferences. The Complainant being dissatisfied with the services rendered by the matrimonial firm as the opposite party failed to provide a suitable match for the son of the complainant. The opposite party not only wasted the precious time of the complainant but also caused gross mental agony and physical harassment. The opposite party miserably failed in their professional service and cheated the complainant.
The Opposite Party has inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the Opposite Party in failing to provide the complainant’s desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainants.
We found the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainants.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The opposite party shall refund Rs. 50,400/- (Rs. 45,000 + 2,700+ 2700) to the complainants as per Exhibit A-1 and A-2 paid by the complainant to the opposite party.
- The opposite party shall pay the complainants Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation for loss caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices of the opposite party.
- The opposite party shall also pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (ii) above also shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 11th day of April 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A-1: True Copy of Receipt No. SOKE-02B002- 0936 for Rs.45,000/- from matrimony.com dated 27.07.2016.
Exhibit A-2: True Copy of Receipt No. 1256 from matromony.com dated 31.03.2016.
Exhibit A-3: Copy of Lawyer Notice issued to the Opposite Party Dated 23.03.2017.
C C NO 442/2017
Order dated 11.04.2023
