DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.174/2013

Dr. Ranjana Mukhopadhyay

R/o House No. G-1307, Chitranjan Park,

New Delhi-110019                                                   ….Complainant

Versus

M/s Sycorian Matrimonial services Limited,

Through its Prop./Partner/Director/Principal Officer

Ab-1, Kamal Cinema Complex,

Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029 ….Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution        : 09.04.13      Date of Order                : 25.04.19

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

1. Briefly put, father of the complainant took membership of M/s Sycorian Matrimonial services Limited, hereinafter referred to as OP, which is a professionally managed matrimonial company catering to matrimonial requirements of large number of people. Initially, Rs.8,300/- was deposited with OP for match-making and matrimonial services. Thereafter, on the advice of representative of OP and for better prospects for his daughter i.e. the complainant, father of the complainant took special matrimonial package on concession, for Rs.35,000/-. Father of the complainant paid Rs.26,700/- on 28.11.11 to OP. Thus, the total amount paid was Rs.35,000/-. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the parties wherein all kinds of promises were made by OP to the complainant. Copies of Memorandum of Understanding and receipt are placed on record as Annexure C-1 & C-2. 

1. Prior to taking of special matrimonial package father of the complainant issued guidelines criteria for selection of suitable groom for his daughter. It was only after discussion that OP advised the father of the complainant to take special matrimonial package of their own choice and status.
2. Even after considerable amount of time when OP failed to find a suitable and appropriate match for the complainant the complainant and her father contacted and made various phone calls to OP regarding the same but OP failed to fulfill their commitments and promises. It was only then the father of the complainant sent a letter dated 17.01.12 to OP thereby requesting them to refund the amount paid. Thereafter, the complainant  on various occasions asked OP to either refund the money or search a suitable match for the complainant  as per her status but all in vain.
3. Thus, aggrieved by the aforesaid act of OP the complainant approached this Forum and prayed that OP be directed to refund Rs.35,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.  Additionally to direct OP to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant alongwith litigation charges.

2.  OP resisted the complaint inter-alia stating that the father of the complainant approached OP to search for a good profile and suitable prospective husband from a high profile background. OP provided proposal for prospective alliance which could not match the demands of the complainant in some categories. OP submitted that the search of a prospective alliance for a lady of 40 years of age was difficult and limited options were available.  It is next submitted that with the consultation of complainant OP provided many proposals who were qualifying the criteria as approved by the complainant. It is averred that more than 100 proposals have gone to the complainant but the parents of the complainant have lots of reservations hence no positive result was yielded.
   1. It is submitted that the obligations of OP were limited to the extent under the agreement to provide suitable proposals for the complainant which were meeting the minimum requirement of the complainant. It is reiterated that OP with active efforts and continued initiative tried to provide best suitable proposal for proper alliance.
   2. Further, the complainant executed the Matrimony Prospecting Form (Agreement) after reading and understanding its contents and terms & conditions. Vide clause (q) of the terms and conditions of the Agreement the complainant’s was aware and had agreed that in no circumstances the registration/membership charges shall be refunded. OP reiterated that it acted diligently and in fair manner and has nowhere been negligent or deficient in service, therefore the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP reiterating the averments made in the complaint and also evidence by way of affidavit.
4. OP was proceeded exparte vide order dated 01.04.14. OP preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission against the said exparte order. The Hon’ble State Commission allowed the appeal and set-aside the exparte order with liberty to file evidence by way of affidavit. However, despite affording sufficient opportunities to the OP to file evidence by way of affidavit it failed to do so, hence OP’s right to file evidence by way of affidavit was closed on 08.07.15.

5. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant.

6. Heard the submissions on behalf of the complainant and perused the record carefully. 

7. Copy of the letter dated 17.01.12 written by complainant’s father is placed on record as Annexure C-3. The relevant portion/guidelines for selection of a suitable groom are reproduced as under:-

“We had given you the following criteria for selection of a suitable groom-

1. Delhi based boy, as our daughter is a government servant and is required to work in Delhi alone.

2. Age between 40 and 45 years. Grooms junior in age, and if there is no objection from the proposed groom’s side, is also acceptable.

3. Well Qualified Groom, viz. BE/B Tech/M Tech, Doctorate, MS, MBBS, MD, Master Degree in other subjects such as Master of Law, Architect, MBA, MBA, CA. It was clarified that someone having only a Graduate or Master degree in Arts, Commerce etc. will not do; such grooms must have MBA, CA, Law etc. as additional qualifications.

4. Earning well i.e. at least be in the pay bracket of Rs.15 to 20 lakhs per annum. This can be somewhat relaxed for otherwise highly qualified boy from status family.

5. The girl should not be required to stay in a joint family. The boy should have independent status and an independent house.

6. The boy should be from a status family.”

8. A bare look at the criteria laid down by father of the complainant shows that the criteria is not only impractical and difficult, but almost impossible to achieve in the given circumstances. Further, we are of the opinion that OP had a limited role to play as OP was only to suggest or recommend suitable proposals for the matrimonial alliance but it cannot be held responsible for alliance culminating into the marriage. As per terms & conditions of OP reference is made to point 5 & point 6 which are reproduced as under:-

5. The company is under no obligation to furnish any definite number of options if there are none corresponding to the bio-data/match desired criteria in the data base, toward any applicants.

It is next noticed that a special Matrimonial Package of Rs.55,000/- was given to the complainant at concessional rate and only Rs.35,000/- was charged from the complainant.

9. Therefore, this Forum is of the considered opinion that OP cannot be blamed to be deficient in service for impractical criteria’s of the parents of the complainant. Accordingly, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

          Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

(Kiran Kaushal)                                                                                (A.S. Yadav)

Member                                                                                             President

Announced on 25.04.19