Brief facts of the case:
The complainant had deposited Rs,13,000/- on dt.08.06.2019 through Google Pay (UPI Transaction ID 91591439369) and it was received by the O.P no 2 to provide profiles of prospective candidates for the negotiation of marriage purpose of his sister. As the complainant being influenced by the O.Ps, deposited the above amount so had expected that the O.Ps will make necessary steps for the above purpose but alleged that the O.Ps did not take any steps within the stipulated period of three months for which his sister became a member of Matrimonial Sites with a provided ID number Y1259131 by the O.P. Further the complainant alleged that the O.Ps avoided even the phone call though there was term and condition to serve for the very purpose otherwise the deposited amount will fully be returned. So on dt. 03.08.2019 the complainant being aggrieved on the O.Ps write letter to O.Ps to returned the full amount deposited by him on which the O.Ps did not reply and take any steps. So the complainant filed complain petition before the district commission on dt.17.10.2019 against O.Ps praying to refund his deposited amount Rs.13,000/- with 18% interest till realisation, Rs.20,000/-for compensation and Rs.2,000/- for cost of litigation, negligence and deficiency in service.
On the other hand the O.Ps in their version admitted the payment but denied the allegations of not taking any steps for the negotiation purpose whereas provided 34 no. of profiles of prospective candidates for the purpose of negotiation and out of these Eight profiles were accepted by the complainant from dt.15.06.2019 to 07.09.2019 within the stipulated membership period of the complainant’s sister in the Matrimonial Sites of O.Ps though stringent preferences kept by the complainant. On the claim of complainant to return the deposited money due to negligence of service the O.Ps replied that the O.Ps have already explained the complainant about term and conditions that the O.Ps never guaranteed to fix up marriage of the complainant’s sister with any prospective candidates but only support by providing profiles of preferential prospective candidates for negotiation purpose only according to the choice of complainant and it has done as possible. Further the O.Ps have submitted two sheets of documents related to Matrimonial Sites of the complainant’s sister as evidence to their version, where it has provided prospects list.
Issues:
1. Weather there exits deficiency of service?
Though the petitioner claim for deficiency of service by O.Ps but not provided any evidence in support instead the O.Ps submitted that it has provided sufficient service with list of prospective candidates and given evidence in support of it. So there is no existence of deficiency of service by O.Ps.
2. Weather the complainant liable to get any relief?
As the O.Ps submitted in its version that it has provided possible profiles of prospective candidates for the negotiation purpose of marriage of complainant’s sister but not confirmed from both side i.e. either from the prospects or from the complainant, the O.Ps cannot compel any parties for marriage and had not given any guarantee so had explained these to the complainant. Further submitted related evidence hence, the complainant is not liable for getting any relief.
ORDER
On basis of above facts, findings settlement of issues and its determination with evidence we concluded that the complaint petition is devoid of merits due to lack of evidence, hence the complaint case is dismissed without cost and disposed of on contest.
Order pronounced in the open court this the day of 31st January 2023 under the seal and signature of this commission. Free copy of order be supplied to the parties, if applied for.
