Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/560

Bahadar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NRI Marriage Bureeu - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

02 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 560 dated 09.12.2019.                                                       Date of decision: 02.09.2022.

 

Bahadar Singh Bhangu aged about 64 years son of Sh. Surjit Singh, resident of H. No.2, Street No.11, Mohalla Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Dhandra Road, Post Office Gill, Ludhiana-141116, Punjab                                                                                                                                           ..…Complainant 

•  

NRI Marriage Bureau, 508-209, 5^th Floor, K-10 Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its authorized signatory.                                                                                                                                            …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Bahadar Singh Bhangu in person

For OP                           :         Sh. Amandeep Singh Sallan, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in the year 2017, the complainant got published  matrimonial in Punjabi newspaper Ajit as his son was interested in marrying a girl settled abroad as the son of the complainant also intended to settle in a foreign country. After the period of one month from the issuance of the said matrimonial, the complainant received a call from a person namely Karan Thind who claimed to be speaking from Canada. He advised the complainant to contact the OP for this purpose. As the son of the complainant has studied only up to 10+2 and the complainant himself did not own much land, he dropped the idea to visit the office of OP. However, after a few days, he received another call from Canada and this time one Madam Bharti was calling. She also pressed upon the complainant to visit the office of the OP where a foreigner bride could be found for the son of the complainant. On the insistence of Ms. Bharti, the complainant contacted OP1 at their office on 20.10.2018 and got registered his son’s name and also deposited Rs.21,000/- as advance service charges. Thereafter, the complainant started receiving the call from one Ms. Amika from Canada who told the complainant that she was working as match maker in Canada branch of the OP. She further promised the complainant that she would find an appropriate bride for the son of the complainant. Ms. Amika even sent 50 pictures of the prospective brides to the complainant but none of the parents of any of those girls contacted the complainant for the marriage of their daughters with the son of the complainant. After three months, Madam Amika stopped sending the pictures of the girls to the complainant nor she responded to the complainant’s calls.

2.                It is further alleged that even after a lapse of 9 months, the OP could not find a suitable match for the son of the complainant. On 23.07.2019, the complainant contacted the OP at their office and enquired about any progress upon which one Navjot Singh, an employee of the OP misbehaved with the complainant and asked him to go away. He further told the complainant that the amount of Rs.21,000/- was not refundable. As the OP has miserably failed to find any suitable match for the son of the complainant, they are not entitled to retain the advance fee of Rs.21,000/-. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 29.10.2019 but to no avail. Hence the complaint. In the end, it has been requested that the OP be made to refund the amount of Rs.21,000/- to the complainant and be also made to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and expenses for deficiency of service.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is misconceived and not maintainable nor the complainant has any locus standie to file the present complaint. On merits, it has been denied if some Bharti Madam called the complainant from Canada to contact office of the OP in Ludhiana for the marriage of the son of the complainant. According to the OP, the complainant visited the office of OP on 20.10.2018 and showed his interest in availing the services of OP for finding a match for his son. The complainant was explained the whole process in a simple language and was apprised of the facts that the OP did not take any guarantee for the marriage. The complainant was further explained that the OP would put in their best efforts for finding a match for his son Onkar Singh and in case he opted for availing the services of OP, an Id of the son of the complainant would be created by OP on their website for a period of three months. Thus, the OP simply provided a platform through their services to enhance the marriage prospects of the son of the complainant. The complainant after having understood the terms and conditions signed the documents on 20.10.2018. Thereafter, an ID bearing No.NMB-41386938 was created on the website of the OP i.e. www.nrimb.com. Thereafter, the concerned team of the OP started the process of finding a suitable match by making profile as per the details furnished by the complainant which was uploaded on the official website of OP. Thereafter, the son of the complainant started receiving profile of girls for the period of three months. It has been admitted that an employee of OP namely Amika was in touch with the complainant. The OP has further pleaded that best efforts were put in during the period of three months and as many as two girls namely Gurmehar Kaur and Harpreet Bassi showed interest in the profile of complainant’s son and agreed to talk. However, after their interaction with the complainant, Gurmehar Kaur showed no interest for marriage with complainant’s son Onkar Singh. The OP gathered feedback from another girl who had showed interest in the profile of complainant’s son but the family of the girl refused to proceed any further. Thus, according to the OP, efforts were made for a period of three months but during this period, the efforts did not yield the required result. Therefore, it cannot be said that the OP cheated the complainant in any manner. Simply because the efforts made by the complainant did not result into the marriage of the son of the complainant with a girl settled abroad it cannot be said that the OP did not perform its duty. Besides, it was not promised or guaranteed that a suitable match could be found after a period of three months. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                The complainant filed replication reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint and controverted those mentioned in the written statement filed by OP.

5.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Parampreet Singh, authorized signatory of OP along with documents Annexure- R1 to Annexure- R43 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the complainant and the counsel for the OP and have also gone through records.

8.                During the course of arguments, the complainant has argued that he has been cheated. The OP had promised and assured him at the time of taking the advance of Rs.21,000/- that they would definitely arrange a match from foreign country for his son  but no such efforts were seriously made nor any appropriate/suitable match was found for his son. The complainant has further contended that though profile of certain girls were given to the complainant but the said girls or their parents were not willing to marry the son of the complainant. The complainant has further contended that he has been cheated by the OP who must be made to refund Rs.21,000/- charged from him along with compensation and damages as prayed for in the complaint.  

9.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP has argued that the terms and conditions were duly explained to the complainant when he agreed to avail the services of the complainant. The terms and conditions mentioned in Ex. R41 were brought to the knowledge of the complainant wherein it was clearly mentioned that the OP cannot guarantee for marriage. Moreover, the complainant had hired the service of OP for a period of three months on payment of Rs.21,000/- and during this period, sincere efforts were made by the OP in as much as a profile of son of the complainant was created on the website of the OP and profiles of several girls were supplied to the complainant, copies of which are Ex. R3 to Ex. R39 Therefore, it cannot be said that there has been any deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

10.              We have weighed the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

11.              It is not disputed that the complainant availed the services of the OP for finding a match for his son with a girl settled abroad. The complainant himself has placed on record Ex. C1 which contains the terms and conditions. It is clearly mentioned in the terms and conditions of document Ex. C1 that the OP would provide best efforts to find a perfect life partner but it cannot guarantee for  the marriage as the marriages are not in the  hands of human and further that the OP is just a source for match making. It has been categorically claimed by the OP that after the complainant agreed to avail the services of OP on 20.10.2018, an Id of the son of the complainant was created on the website of the OP i.e. www.nrimb.com and profile Ex. R2 of the son of the complainant was uploaded on the website. Thus, the profile of the son of the complainant was put in domain where it could be accessed by prospective girls/brides or their parents looking for an appropriate match for them. In addition to this, the OP supplied profiles of more than 35 girls with their Ids which also gave  access to the complainant to establish contact with the said girls or their parents. It has further been claimed by the OP in para no.6 of the written statement that two girls namely Gurmehar Kaur Id No.MBEM41310126 and Harpreet Bassi Id No.NMB41385204 showed interest in the son of the complainant and agreed to talk but later on they withdrew being not interested in the marriage with the son of the complainant. Family of one girl namely Gurmehar Kaur responded to the OP through email stating that the family of the complainant was greedy and it appeared that they just wanted to send their boy out of India. A copy of the email has been placed on record as Ex. R42 wherein it is mentioned that the complainant’s family was of greedy nature and they just wanted to send Upkar Singh abroad.

12.              From the evidence available on record, it appears that the complainant hired the services of the OP for finding a suitable match of a foreigner girl for his son. After having receipt fee/charges of Rs.21,000/-, the OP did make efforts  to find a suitable match by uploading the profile of the son of the complainant on its website and also by supplying the details of many girls with their Ids to enable the complainant to contact them. It cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service if such efforts did not result into actually finding a match for the son of the complainant. It is a matter of common knowledge that a marriage bureau can only make efforts and it was never agreed by the OP that they would refund the fee of Rs.21,000/- in case they are not able to find a suitable match for the son of the complainant. Moreover, there is no such condition in the terms and conditions Ex. C1/Ex. R41 placed on record by the parties. Thus, the complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

13.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

14.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Bahadar Singh Bhangu Vs NRI Marriage Bureau                             CC/19/560

Present:       Complainant Sh. Bahadar Singh Bhangu in person.

                   Sh. Amandeep Singh Sallan, Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.