Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/210/2019

V J Venkataraju - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s K M Wedding Events Managment - Opp.Party(s)

G Keerthana

27 Dec 2022

ORDER

                                         Date of Complaint Filed : 31.07.2019

                                         Date of Reservation      : 14.12.2022

                                          Date of Order               : 27.12.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                  : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                  :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,           : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 210/2019

TUESDAY, THE 27^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022

Mr.V.J. Venkataraju,

Son of Mr.Jeersamy Raja,

L-130, New No.10,

L-Block, 17^th Street,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennal-600 102.

Tamil Nadu.                                                                                                                              ...   Complainant             

..Vs..

 

1.M/s.K.M. Wedding Events Management (P) Ltd.,

   Represented by its Chairman,

   No. 6/1, Ramaswamy Street,

   T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

   Tamilnadu.

 

2.Mr. Mohan @Mr. Kalyanamalai Mohan,

   Chairman,

   K.M. Wedding Events Management (P) Ltd,

   No. 6/1, Ramaswamy Street,

   T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

   Tamilnadu.                                                                                                                                          …   Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. G. Keerthana

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. J. Pothiraj

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to tender an unconditional apology to the Complainant and to return back the amount of Rs.1,08,000/- paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties against receipt, together with interest @12% p.a from the date of respective payments made against receipt and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Parties and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the unfair, deceptive trade practice of the Opposite Parties and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, hardship and loss suffered by the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the legal notice and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of this complaint.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant had approached the Opposite Parties for a suitable bride for his son, a practicing Advocate at Madras High Court, on seeing the regular canvass made by them in TV channels and in other advertisements, on 11.11.2016 with necessary particulars of his son. Various scheme of the Opposite Parties has been advertised and had induced to chose a Category known as “Chairman’s Plus”, as only in the said scheme the Chairman of 1^st Opposite Party would directly contact and thereafter they met the 2^nd Opposite Party in person. They were made to pay a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- immediately, though they had not enough cash nor had cheque, the Opposite Parties pressurized to pay the cash in hand and the balance in a short while. Accordingly he had paid a sum of Rs.78,000/- by cash vide receipt No.1679-14/15 dated 11.11.2016 and the balance of Rs.30,000/- on 16.11.2016, thereafter the Opposite Parties had provided registration No.781209 with user ID and Password to his son. Under the Rules and Regulations provided in the Receipt the Opposite Parties had agreed to provide profiles matching the profile selection preferences of his son and the Scheme registered would receive personal attention and would get promoted under the guidance of the 2^nd Opposite Party. It was also informed that an exclusive relationship manager designated would select the prospective bride profiles matching precise requirement. On the assurances he had paid the amount demanded, but had not received much communication and only on his call, few profiles were forwarded which did not suit his son. On one such instance, on 05.10.2017 he had received a email from the Opposite Parties enclosing a profile of one P.Varshini, to send his feed back to proceed further. It was informed by the Opposite Parties over phone that the particular bride side had expressed their interest on his son’s profile and they were in discussion with the Opposite Parties to proceed further. He was highly shocked to see the profile and the photo that has been forwarded, as that particular girl was already got married and she was under family way, leading a happy marital life, in spite of the said fact that the Opposite parties had informed him that they were in discussion to finalise alliance to his son. As the husband of the said Girl is a close friend of their family and hence he was shocked and surprised to note that the Opposite Parties organization more particularly the 2^nd Opposite Party was playing with the life of young people, without thinking the consequences, hence he sent a detailed mail on 09.10.2017 to the Opposite Parties pointing the huge blunder committed by them and mental agony caused to them, of their Unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. On receipt of the mail the Opposite parties had contacted him over phone and told that it was an inadvertent error on their part and forgive for the same and assured to send immediately few other profiles which would exactly match his son. Inspite of the assurances and promises, there were no updates or improvements in Opposite Parties services.  He was constrained to cause a legal notice dated 17.10.2017 to the Opposite Parties, in spite of the receipt there was no response. Thereafter another legal notice dated 01.11.2017 was sent to the Opposite Parties, for which a two replies dated 01.11.2017 and 04.11.2017 was received, wherein it was mentioned that the Profile of bride P.Varshini was forwarded only on the hope that the said customer is unmarried. As these matrimonies are considered to be a sacred place where the marriages are created and their objective is to render soulful service helping to find a life partner to spend the rest of their life, but the Opposite Parties see it as a mere business and mess with the young people who approach them with trust. The Opposite Parties had absolutely failed to render their services as promised and had lethargically sent a wrong profile of a married woman to his son, in spite of collecting a Lakhs of rupees towards their service. Having fed up with the lethargic, irresponsible attitude and unethical business of the Opposite Parties, he had requested to remove his son’s profile and not to circulate any of the bride’s profile. The Opposite Parties had misrepresented with false advertisement and had received Rs.1,08,000/- fraudulently with unethical manner and had sent a defective profile without making proper verification which amount to unfair and deceptive trade practice and had caused untold mental agony, hardship and huge loss to him. Hence the Complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

 The Opposite Parties originally the complainant sent a legal notice on 17.10.2017 through his advocate and for the said legal notice, the Opposite Parties sent a reply notice on 25.10.2017 denying the allegations leveled by the Complainant. Once again, the complainant sent another legal notice on 01.11.2017 levelling baseless and false allegations. For the said legal notice dated 01.11.2017 also, the Opposite Parties through their advocate on the same day viz. 01.11.2017 sent a reply notice denying the allegations and inter alia stating that the Opposite Parties had established a name for themselves in the matrimonial circle and have earned a good reputation amongst its customers. The Complainant had actually approached the his Son Jai Hari Sudhan. At the time of meeting Complainant opted to avail the services offered by the Opposite Parties under the cry "Chairman's Plus". To this the Opposite Parties fixed a remuneration of Rs 1,08,000/-. The complainant also paid the said amount on his own will. They never pressurized or lured the complainant to opt for the scheme and pay the require amount as stated above: The Opposite Parties have several schemes and according to the scheme opted by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties forwarded several, profiles including that of one P.Varshini According to the scheme, the Chain viz, the 2 Opposite Party himself takes personal interest in the process of identifying profiles of suitable brides and in the case of the complainant, it was very much adopted. However, though profiles of suitable bride were identified and action taken for follow up, the brides' families have on enquiries, invariably learnt that the profile of the complainant's son to be false as the personal details were found to be not correct. Therefore, the families of the brides rejected the alliance of the complainant's son on the reason that the profile is false since his profile states that he is doing business and earning around Rs.20.00 lakhs per annum, and is simultaneously practicing before the courts too. This was obviously found to be false and incorrect as one cannot practice in the court and simultaneously do business, as it is prohibited by the Advocates' Act. Therefore, whenever any suitable bride is available, finally on enquiry the profile of the complainant's son used to be found false and incorrect and consequently, the alliance of complainant's son was not considered. The legal notice sent by the Complainant dated 01.11.2017 the Opposite parties issued another reply notice on 04.11.2017. In the reply notice, suitable reply was given to the complainant's advocate and after keeping quiet for nearly two years, all of a sudden, in order to harass and cause bad reputation to the Opposite Party organization, the present complaint has been filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in July 2019 only to tarnish the image of the Opposite Parties in the eyes of the public. The validity period of the "Chairman's Plus scheme availed by the complainant is only for nine months and during that period, the Chairman viz., the 2^nd Opposite Party himself was involved in identifying suitable bride for the complainant's son. However, due to the false information given by the Complainant's son in his profile, the parents of the bride were not interested and they negative the offers of the Opposite Parties. The allegation of furnishing false information with regard to the bride P.Varshini is utter false. The complainant's family delayed the process of alliance and in the meantime, the said Varshini got married. However, the Opposite Parties always exhibited professional approach in identifying suitable bride, and the Chairman himself took personal care since the complainant had availed the "Chairman's Plus Scheme. However, the brides' families negative the offer of the  complainant's son for furnishing false information about his professional activities. Therefore, though suitable care and attention was given by the Opposite Parties and they rendered services in good faith, inspite of the same, the false information given by the complainant's son led to rejection of his profile and the brides' families did not come forward to proceed for proposal of marriage with the complainant's son. They took utmost pain and care in identifying suitable bride for the complainant's son and sent several profiles to the complainant, they however, it did not materialize. The Opposite Parties have rendered absolute professional service by getting in touch with the family of the complainant and forwarding suitable profiles matching to the complainant's son. The Opposite Parties rendered deficiency in service is utter false and only with an ulterior motive, the present Complaint has been filed. The intention of the complainant is also malafide and to tarnish the image of the Opposite Parties built up over several years. The Opposite Parties just as in any other case, have rendered valuable services to the complainant and however, the Opposite Parties only furnished false information with regard to the complainant's son. There is no monetary loss or mental agony to the complainant. As a matter of fact, due to the present complaint, the name and fame of the Parties are damaged. The Opposite Parties did not indulge in any unfair trade practice. For the amount of Rs.1,08,000/- the Opposite Parties have rendered valuable services. After receipt of legal notices from the counsel of the complainant, the Opposite Parties were constrained to send reply notices stoutly denying the allegations. After keeping quiet for nearly two years, the present complaint has been filed with ulterior motives and mala fide intention to tarnish the image and reputation of the Opposite Parties amongst the public. Further, the claim of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards deficiency in service and another sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered is highly excessive and unfair, another Rs.25,000/- cost of the legal notice and Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the complaint claimed by the Complainant is also illegal, arbitrary and imaginary. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.       

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6. The Opposite Parties submitted his Written Version and Proof Affidavit of Opposite Parties no documents was marked.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1

From the perusal of Exhibits marked in the support of the Complaint, it is clear that the Complainant’s son’s profile was registered by the Opposite Parties as found in Ex.A-1 and a payment of Rs.1,08,000/- was paid by the Complainant and received by the Opposite Parties as per the receipts dated 11.11.2016 marked as Ex.A-2. By Ex.A-3 mail dated 05.10.2017 sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant, profile of one Ms.Varshini (Regn No.713420) was found to be sent. On coming to know about the information that the girl in the profile sent by the Opposite Party has got married and she was under family way, leading a happy marital life and the husband of the said girl was close to their family, as it was informed by the Opposite Parties that the said girl’s side had expressed interest on his son’s profile and they were in discussion with the Opposite Parties to proceed further, the Complainant had sent a detailed reply through mail dated 09.10.2017 and the same was marked as Ex.A-4. The Legal notice dated 17.10.2017 containing the above facts along with subsequent conversations and developments, was sent to the 2^nd Opposite Party, which was received by the 2^nd Opposite Party and the said Legal notice with acknowledgment card was marked as Ex.A-5. The reply notice dated 01.11.2017 sent by the 2^nd Opposite Party through his advocate was marked as Ex.A-6, wherein it was mentioned in the reply notice dated 01.11.2017 (Ex.A-6), that the Opposite Parties had sent the profile of Ms.Varhsini, only on the hope that the said person is unmarried, whereas in the written version it was mentioned that the Complainant’s family delayed the process of alliance and in the meantime the said Varshini got married, which are contrary, and the said contention made by the Opposite Party in the written version is unjustifiable, as only on 05.10.2017 the profile of the said Varshini was forwarded to the Complainant and the Complainant had sent a detailed mail (Ex.A-4) on 09.10.2017 itself about the information of the said Varshini and the contentions made in the written version are not at all sustainable and acceptable. Hence it is clear that the Opposite Parties without verification of the status/particulars of a person, had sent/forwarded a profile of a married person in a lethargic and negligent manner to the Complainant which clearly amounts to deficiency of service and providing a false profile with imperfect information clearly amounts to Unfair Trade Practice. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties had committed Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency of service and thereby had caused mental agony to the Complainant. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 and 3:-

         As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties 1 and 2, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- being the sum received by the Opposite Parties under Receipts dated 11.11.2016, together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 31.07.2019 till the date of realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant. And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

      In the result the complaint is allowed in part. the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are directed jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Eight Thousand Only) being the sum received by the Opposite Parties under Receipts dated 11.11.2016, together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 31.07.2019 till the date of realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of this Order, failing which, the Complainant is entitled to claim interest @ 9% per annum on the above said sum of Rs.1,08,000/- from the date of the order till the date of realization.

          In the result this complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 27^th of December 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	-	Catalogue of the schemes provided by Opposite Parties
Ex.A2	11.11.2016	Receipt for payment of subscription fee
Ex.A3	05.10.2017	Wrong profile sent by the Opposite Party through E-mail
Ex.A4	09.10.2017	e-mail sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A5	17.10.2017	Legal Notice sent by the Complainant along with the Acknowledgement card
Ex.A6	01.11.2017	Reply sent by the Opposite parties

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

NIL

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT