The case of the complainant is that he availed service of the opposite party/Gathbandhan Centre Having its office at P-39, Princep Street, Opp. Orient Cinema, Kolkata – 700 072, P.S. Hare Street on payment of consideration amount of Rs.13,500/- (Rupees thirteen thousand and five hundred) only as service fee for the purpose of marriage of his daughter. The opposite party is a marriage bureau.
The business of the opposite party is on receiving consideration money, it provides details of the groom and/or bride to the parties who avail service and act as mediator between the parties for marriage. It is alleged that in spite of payment of service charge of Rs. 13,500/- (Rupees thirteen thousand and five hundred) only, the opposite party has not rendered any service to the complainant.
According to the complainant the opposite party is liable for deficiency in service as it had not provided any services to the complainant as promised. Hence this case.
The opposite party filed written version and denied the allegation made by the complainant in this case. It is stated that the complainant over telephone disclosed dissatisfaction with the service and claimed refund of the service charge of Rs. 13,500/- (Rupees thirteen thousand and five hundred) only and compensation of Rs.11,500/- (Rupees eleven thousand and five hundred) only from the opposite party. The opposite party being a reputed service provider/institution, to avoid any type of controversy has immediately come to a settlement with the complainant and paid an amount of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees twenty one thousand) only on 28.03.2022 to the complainant. In spite of refund of the service charge along with compensation to the tune of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees twenty one thousand) only the complainant by suppressing the material fact has filed the complaint case before this Commission. As such, the case of the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the rival pleadings of both the parties the following points are framed for determination.
Points for determination
- Is the case is maintainable in law and in its present form?
- Is the complainant a consumer as per provision of the C.P.Act,2019?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as claimed for?
Discussion with reason
Point Nos.1 to 3:-
For the sake of brevity and convenience all the three points are taken up together for consideration and discussion.
On scrutiny of the record it appears that the complainant has submitted affidavit in chief and original Invoice-cum-receipt date 01/10/2019 issued by Gotbandhan Centre. The document is marked as ‘Ext.-1’. It further appears that in order to cross examine the complainant, the opposite party filed questionnaire against the affidavit in chief.
The complainant though filed rely to the questionnaire of opposite party but the reply of the complainant has not been stated on solemn affirmation on oath. Therefore, the reply filed by the complainant cannot be treated as evidence.
It further appears from the record that several dates were fixed for filing affidavit in chief by the opposite party. In spite of the same the opposite party deliberately did not file any evidence on oath in this case.
It is evident from the evidence of the complainant and Ext.-1 that the complainant on 01.10.2019, on payment of service charge of Rs.13,500/- (Rupees thirteen thousand five hundred) only to the opposite party availed its service for a period of six months only. The complainant in his evidence on oath categorically stated that the opposite party has failed to provide any service for negotiation of the marriage of his daughter as promised.
The opposite party has not submitted any evidence to prove that after receipt of the consideration to the tune of Rs.13,500/- (Rupees thirteen thousand and five hundred) only from the complainant, provided any service to him.
In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the complainant availed service of the opposite party for the marriage of his daughter on payment of consideration of Rs.13,500/- (Rupees thirteen thousand and five hundred) only (Ext.1) but no service has been provided to the complainant by opposite party. No evidence has been led by the opposite party in proof that there was a talk of settlement between the parties and/or the dispute was settled with an agreed amount of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees twenty one thousand) only and/or the opposite party has paid Rs.21,000/- (Rupees twenty one thousand) only to the complainant as settlement amount.
Having considered the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has been able to prove his case. As such, the complaint case is liable to be allowed.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.
The opposite party is directed to refund the service charge to the tune of Rs.13,500/- (Rupees thirteen thousand and five hundred) only to the complainant within two months from the date hereof i.d. to pay interest @9% p.a. till payment.
The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only to the complainant as compensation within two months from the date hereof i.d. to pay interest @9% p.a. till payment.
Dictated by me
….....................
President
