DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.143/20
Mr. Nakul Jain
S/o Shri P.K. Jain
R/o B-498, New Friends Colony
New Delhi-110025.
Mrs. Karuna Jain
W/o Shri P.K. Jain
R/o B-498, New Friends Colony
New Delhi-110025. .…Complainants
VERSUS
Mrs. Jasbir Kaur (Sole Proprietor)
M/s Jassi Matrimonial Services
Having its office at
72B, Ground Floor
Sant Nagar, Near East of Kailash
New Delhi-110065. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution: 21.09.2020
Date of Order : 10.04.2023
President: Ms. Monika Srivastava
The complainants have filed the case for refund of Rs.11,000/- along with interest 18% per annum with effect from 18.08.2019 and for Rs.11,000/- along with interest 18% per annum towards harassment, mental agony and trauma undergone by the complainants on account of deficiency in service of OP.
- It is stated by the complainant that OP had to provide services for suitable matrimonial alliance for complainant No.1, i.e the son of complainant no.2. It is stated that the OP claimed her to be different from her competitors who misled clients by making false promises and assurance. It was assured to the complainants that after purchasing the membership of OP’s Marriage Bureau, her dedicated team of professionals would diligently coordinate with the complainants and regularly share via e-mail/What’s App, the matrimonial proposals while sharing complainants profile with large number of female members of the OP and at the same time provide access of the online matrimonial website of the OP to the complainants.
- It is stated that access to the online matrimonial website was inclusive in the membership charges, apart from that setting inter se meetings between the complainants’ family and the families of prospective brides was also part of OPs work.
- It was represented to the complainants that the profiles of the girls was stored in the data bank which was regularly updated/ accessible to the OP not only from her office but also online. Therefore, the complainants would avail these services even when the office of the OP may be closed for any holiday.
- It is further stated by the complainant that she was assured that the OP has large data bank of suitable proposals for complainant No.-1 which would be shared immediately. After the purchase of membership, the OP would consistently and frequently share profiles of prospective brides as part of the membership which was offered apart from sharing complainant No.-1 matrimonial profile with the OP’s female members. The OP also told the complainant to visit her website www.jassimatrimoni.com which was claimed to be owned, managed and operated by the OP and the complainants were told that after payment of the membership, complainants would be provided a user name and password.
- It is the case of the complainants that when they visited the office of the OP on 18.08.2019 they were surprised to see an empty office except for the OP, who told the complainants that she had opened the office on Sunday keeping in mind the urgency of the complainants and that it was weekly off for all the other employees. They were assured that she had adequate resources/staff.
- The complainants then signed a form and issued a cheque dated 18.08.2019 for Rs.11,000/-of HDFC , New Friends Colony and requested the OP to provide a photocopy of the membership form but the OP avoided providing the membership form to the complainant on the pretext that the rubber stamp of the OP was not readily available. True copy of the complainant’s bank account statement evidencing encashment of the said cheque by the OP on 20.08.2019 is annexed as annexure C-2.
- In the meanwhile the OP vide email dated 20.08.2019 sent a draft of matrimonial profile of complainant No.-1 for their approval with the understanding that subsequent to finalisation of the said profile of complainant No.-1, OP would start the matrimonial services as promised. It is stated that on 23.08.2019, the complainants confirmed the profile of complainant No.-1 after making some necessary changes. Thereafter, complainant No.-2 called the OP and reminded her to share prospective proposals and also to provide copy of the alleged membership form stamped and signed as well as user name and password of the online website of the OP. Complainant’s e-mail dated 23.08.2019 is annexed as Annexure C-3.
- In response to the said email, OP told complainant No.-2 that the website was facing some technical issues and that the office of the OP had misplaced the membership form of complainant No.-1 and that she would be providing the form as soon as it was traced.
- It is the case of the complainants that despite repeated reminders OP shared information of only two prospective brides and that too after repeated phone calls.
- It is the case of the complainants that OP failed, avoided and neglected to provide the services as promised and did not share any profiles or provide access to the website or arranged any meeting with the families of the prospective brides even when the complainants had told the OP that he was in a hurry to get married.
- It is the case of the complainants that OP is guilty of deficiency in service and the conduct amounts to unfair trade practice as even after the payment of Rs.11,000/- the OP made the complainants run from pillar to post and made false representation when the OP was aware that she was not equipped with any professional team, website services or data bank of suitable profiles.
- Complainants then called the OP to refund the membership amount but no response was received from the OP forcing the complainant No.-2 to visit the office of the OP on 18.08.2020 wherein she was made to speak to the OP from the office landline number and she was assured that a refund of Rs.11,000/- would be made by 24.08.2020.
- Thereafter, OP contacted the complainant on 20.08.2020 and offered to pay 50% of the amount paid asking the complainants to send an email that they were not interested in the services of the OP and thus were seeking a refund. Complainant No.-2 called the office of the OP on 21.08.2020 but the office of the OP outrightly declined the offers to pay the amount of Rs.5500/-. The complainant had also written email dated 22.08.2020 requesting the refund which is annexed as Annexure- C-8 and the reply of the OP is annexed as Annexure C-9.
- It is the case of the complainant that there is gross inaction on the part of the OP and in response to the legal notice of the complainant, an email dated 01.09.2020 was sent by OP wherein the OP has raised baseless, frivolous contentions in order to set up deficiency which is not there. It is further stated that the letter dated 01.09.2020 sent by the OP was duly responded to by the complainants vide their email dated 03.09.2020.
- It is stated by the complainants that OP’s malafide conduct and ill-intent to deceive the complainant from the very beginning amounts to misrepresentation, deficiency in service as well as unfair and fraudulent trade practice.
- In their reply, the OP has denied that she never assured to the complainants that she has staff more than 10 people in her employment. It is stated by her that as per terms and conditions mentioned in the membership form which was filled and duly signed on 18.08.2019, the membership fee was non-refundable, the company was under no obligation to furnish any definite number of matches from their data base as they were corresponding to the desired criteria of the complainants.
- It is disputed by the OP that the membership was not shared by her with the complainants, in fact it is stated that the complainants were at liberty to take a picture of the said form and that the OP was under no obligation to provide with a copy of the membership form to its clients.
- It is stated by the OP that the complainant No.-1 was restrictive of his choice for a prospective bride and though the membership form filled up by the complainants does not mention any restriction with respect to caste/ community, however, during a telephonic conversation with complainant No.-2, OP was told that they were looking for girls only from a particular community.
- It is stated by the OP that keeping in mind the specific requirements of the complainants, OP provided the services to the best of her ability and showed two profiles to the complainants and on instruction from complainant No.-2. The OP was required to take approval from prospective match and then only sent profiles to the complainants. It is stated by her that she shared the complainant No.-1’s profile with various prospective girls through email on various dates. It is stated that meeting between the two parties could only be scheduled when both the parties were willing and agreeable to do so.
- It is stated by the OP that her office was closed till July 2020 on account of Covid-19 and was partially working with 50% on alternative days thereafter. It is stated by the OP during the peak of pandemic situation, the complainant No.-2 approached the office of the OP and threatened the female staff and insulted them and complainant No.-1 and also threatened to file false and frivolous cases against the OP.
- It is stated by the OP that complainant No.-1 was a highly impatient and restless person and that match making is a sensitive job which cannot be completed in a day. It is further stated that OP has provided her services with full efficiency and that the amount paid is non-refundable as per terms and conditions of the membership form.
- It is denied by the OP that she had given any assurance to the complainants providing access to her website. It is stated by the OP that access of online facility is only given to the clients who obtain online services from the OP. It is further denied by the OP that the profiles of the girls stored in the data banks was never updated.
- It is stated by the OP that she had particularly informed the complainants that due to the complainant No.-1’s age and precise requirements finding a suitable match would be difficult. It is stated by her that the complainants did not request to take picture of membership form after signing it. It is stated by the OP that complainants did not subscribe to all the services of the OP and even if they had subscribed to it, the services could not be provided at that time as the website was facing some technical issues.
- It is stated by the OP that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. It is stated that OP offered to refund 50% of the non-refundable membership fee in order to avoid false and frivolous cases being filed as was threatened by complainant No.-1. It is admitted by her that she had requested complainant No.-1 to send an email stating that he no longer needed the services of the OP to avoid any future unwarranted situation.
- It is stated by the OP that the complainants were not agreeable to send any such mail and therefore, the OP could not refund the 50% of the amount.
This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and while it is believable version that the OP could not provide proper services during Covid time and that matchmaking is a time consuming process. However, the OP has not been able to explain why only two profiles were shared with the complainants as the complainants have not restricted their choice of matrimonial alliance as per the form placed on record by the OP. It is also not clear as to why the OP did not attempt to provide online services during covid time although she was providing such services otherwise.
It is seen from the record that the OP has been deficient in providing services to the complainants and the OP has also not provided copy of the form to the complainants and is very categorical in shunning her responsibility by stating that the complainants could have taken a picture of the form.
Since the OP has provided some service to the complainant therefore this Commission is of the view that ends of justice would be met by directing the OP to refund 50% of the fees taken from the complainants i.e Rs. 5,500/- to the complainant all inclusive within three months from the date of this order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 5 % p.a from the date of filing of complaint till realization.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
