Delhi

East Delhi

CC/68/2018

ANAND MISHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MATRIMONIAL - Opp.Party(s)

10 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  68/18

 

Shri Anand Mishra

Through A.R.

Shri R.N.Mishra

R/o R-5, Parvana Kumar

Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi                                                     ….Complainant

Vs.

 

M/s. Attune Matrimonial Services Pvt. Ltd.

Through Directors

Regd. Off.: 101-105, Plot No. 11

Chetan Complex, Near Cross River Mall

Block-A, Central Market

Surajmal Vihar, delhi – 110 092                                                    …Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 26.02.2018

Date of Order : 24.05.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

ORDER

            Complainant Shri Anand Mishra, in the month of December 2016, approached M/s. Attune Matrimonial Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP) seeking for an appropriate matrimonial alliance for himself.  Ms. Kajal, executive of OP assured the complainant with immaculate services and explained the services will be for fixed fee of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of which Rs. 51,000/- would be paid by the complainant for the registration and the balance amount of Rs. 1,49,000/- at the time of Roka.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 51,000/- in cash whereby he was provided a log in ID bearing no. 12/24/16.  The complainant started searching for an appropriate match through the website i.e. www.attune.in, of OP. 

 

            It has been stated that complainant browsed the website and after going through number of profiles, selected some of the profiles and forwarded the same to OP for appropriate alliance, however, OP did not turn up and started neglecting the complainant.  They have stopped attending the phone calls of the complainant as such they have been negligent for providing services.  Thus, it has been stated that they have indulged in unfair trade practice and provided deficient services.  Hence, the complainant have claimed a refund of Rs. 51,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation towards mental harassment and agony and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation alongwith 18% interest .

 

 

            Heard on Admission

 

            It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that M/s. Attune Matrimonial Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP) was deficient in their services. 

 

            During the course of arguments, question cropped up as to whether matrimonial services are services which fall under the category of services as provided under the definition of “Services” under Section 2(o) of the Act.

 

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the complainant, a look has to be made to the definition of ‘Service’ as well as ‘Deficiency’, as provided under the Consumer Protection Act.  Section 2(o) of the Act defines ‘Service’ and Section 2(g) ‘Deficiency’.  They are extracted hereunder-

 

            Section 2(o) “service” means service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board of lodging or both, [housing construction], entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;

 

            From a bare reading of Section 2(o) ‘Service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board of lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information.  The definition is of descriptive in nature and any service which is of the kind mentioned in the definition will be covered under this definition.

           

            Section 2(g) “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

 

            Again reading of Section 2(g) ‘Deficiency’ show that a deficiency relates to any fault in prescription, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which was required to be maintained or was undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.  Thus, deficiency relates to goods or service which the seller/provider was required to maintain under the contract or under any law.

 

            The word ‘Undertaken’ in the definition are the key words, as the service or the quality which was to be maintained should have been undertaken by the service provider or the seller to maintain and that too in pursuance of the contract.  Thus, the service must be undertaken by the service provider or the seller under a contract or under the law.

 

            The question to be answered is as to whether matrimonial services will be considered a service as defined under Section 2(o) of the Act or not?  To ascertain this, a reference has also to be made to Section 2(d) of the Act which defines ‘Consumer’.    Section 2(d) of the Act is extracted hereunder:-

 

            Section 2(1)(d) “consumer means any person who, -

 

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

 

2. [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 and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].

 

            First part of the definition speaks of buying of goods for a consideration and the second part hiring or availing of any service for a consideration.  The combined reading of Section 2(d) and 2(o) show that a person who buys any goods for consideration or who hires or avails any service for consideration will be considered a “Consumer” and availing of service may be of any description which was made available to potential users.  Thus, the service must have relation to a thing which can be described as goods.  The dictionary meaning of the word ‘Goods’ is an inherently useful and relatively scare tangible item.  So, a service must relate to a tangible item.  Though, “Service” defined under Section 2(o) of the Act is an inclusive definition, but certain services have been mentioned in the definition relating to banking, financing insurance, transport, processing etc. etc.  Where a provision is of this nature and includes certain services described therein the rule of Ejusdem Generis of Interpretation of Statues have to be applied. 

 

            If this rule of Ejusdem Generis of interpretation is applied, the service must be of a description which is in the nature of banking, financing insurance, transport, processing etc. etc.  The matrimonial services cannot be said to be a service falling under the category of service which may come within the definition of “Service” under Section 2(o) of the Act.  Therefore, it cannot be said that matrimonial service is a service which falls under the definition of “Service” as defined under Section 2(o) of the Act.

 

            Secondly, the deficiency in service is a shortcoming which was required to be maintained as undertaken in pursuance of the contract.  If it is not undertaken in pursuance of the contract, it may not amount to deficiency in service.

 

            Now, it has to be seen as to whether the service provided by M/s. Attune Matrimonial Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP) is a service or there was any deficiency on their part. 

            If the complaint is perused, it is noticed that on paying a sum of     Rs. 51,000/- by the complainant, M/s. Attune Matrimonial Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP) was to provide matrimonial services and after receiving the amount, they stopped attending the phone calls. 

 

            It has further been stated that after giving the selected profiles, they stopped answering the calls and replying the messages of the complainant. 

 

            The complainant was given certain profiles as stated by him.  Providing the profiles to the complainant do not have attributes of a tangible item.  When profiles do not have attributes of a tangible item, the service provided to the complainant by M/s. Attune Matrimonial Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP) was not a service which has relation to a thing in the nature of “Goods”.  Therefore, it cannot be said that matrimonial services fall under the definition of “Service” as provided under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

            Not only that, it does not fall under the definition of Section 2(o)- ‘Service’ of the Act as the matrimonial service is not of description which has been described in the definition.  Thus, by applying the principle of Ejusdem Generis, which is a rule of statutory interpretation, matrimonial services do not fall under the definition of Section 2(o) of the Act.  

 

            Even if it is considered to be a “Service”, there has been nothing on record to show that M/s. Attune Matrimonial Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP) have undertaken to provide the matrimonial service as per any contract.  No document in the nature of a contract has been placed on record to show that they were required to do so.  When there is no document in the nature of a contract under which the performance was to be undertaken, which was deficient, the same does not fall under the definition of “Deficiency” as per Section 2(g) of the Act.

 

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that matrimonial services

do not fall within the definition of “Service” as provided under Section 2(o) of the Act.  Even if it falls, there has been no deficiency on the part of OP which may bring the case of the complainant under the definition of “Deficiency” under Section 2(g) of the Act.  Therefore, the complaint of the complainant cannot be admitted and the same stands dismissed.

 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                         Member    

           

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President