By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1.The complaint in short is as follows: -
On seeing the advertisement of the opposite party, complainant met opposite parties for his brother’s marriage proposal. Believing the words of opposite parties on 23/11/2018 complainant paid Rs. 1500/- as the registration fee to opposite party to get marriage proposals through opposite party’s marriage bureau. When complainant had a meeting with opposite party , and they promised that they were the leading firm in that field and they assured that they will arrange complainant’s brother’s marriage proposal.
2. But opposite parties did not act according to the assurance they had given earlier. At the first meeting with opposite parties, they had given their office address at Kottappadi, Malappuram to complainant. But thereafter complainant had searched opposite parties in that address, he came to know that the office of opposite parties had permanently closed. Thereafter complainant approached opposite parties in person for getting back the money he had given to them. But opposite parties did not return the money to complainant. In detailed enquiry, complainant came to know that it is the usual practice of opposite parties to advertise in news papers about their marriage bureau and cheating the customers after obtaining money. Hence this complaint.
3. Prayer of the complainant is that , he is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 1500/-, the amount he had given to opposite parties for arranging matrimonial proposal of his brother and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.
4. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party andnotice served on them and they appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version. Thereafter complainant filed one IA.No. 61/2021 toimplead Mr. Azees P.K. as opposite party No.2. As per IA.No.62/2021, complaintamended and impleaded Mr. Azees P.K. as opposite party No.2 on 01/03/2021.
5. In their version opposite party No.1 stated that she is the first opposite party and now the proprietor of Desire communication. But she denied all the allegations and averments levelled against her. She again said that she had not received any money from complainant. Complainant never approached her so the contention of complainant about the meeting with her on 23/11/2018 and paid Rs.1500/- to her are denied by her. She again stated that, she had taken up the charge of proprietor of ‘’Desire communication’’ only on 05/09/2019 onwards. As per the case of complainant, he had given the money on 23/11/2018 to opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 said that at that time the aforesaid Desire communication was being run by opposite party No.2. On 05/09/2019, opposite party No.1 had purchased the ‘’Desire communication’’ from opposite party No.2 and taken up the charge of proprietor on that day onwards.
6. She again stated that there is no consumer relation between complainant and opposite party No.1. Moreover there is no liability for her to give an amount to complainant because she did not receive any money from him. Hence she has no liability to compensate the complainant. Hence complaint may be dismissed.
7. In their version, opposite party No.2 stated that, he had denied the entire allegation levelled by complainant against him except those which are admitted there under. He admitted that complainant had approached him for the marriage proposals of his brother and paid Rs.1500/-. He again stated that he never gave assurance to complainant that he will arrange marriage alliance from Malappuram district and other nearby district for complainant's brother. He again denied the contention of complainant regarding that opposite party No.2 had an office at Kottappadi, Malappuram. Opposite party No.2 again stated that complainant had approached his marriage bureau for arranging an alliance for his brother, but complainant had provided false datas about his brother. The contention of opposite party is that the particulars to be given in the application form were falsely given by the complainant to opposite party. Opposite party No.2 said that complainant had suppressed the fact that complainant’s brother was a married man and that he was a divorcee. Actually, the age of complainant’s brother is so high compared to the particulars filled in the application form provided there. Moreover he stated that, complainant‘s brother was already married and separated from the earlier marriage. He is not a bachelor. But complainant did not provide that details of his brother before the marriage bureau conducted by opposite party No.2. He intentionally hide the relevant details about his brother from opposite party No.2. Moreover opposite party No2 had arranged so many marriage proposals from Malappuram district and nearby other district. But no proposal was worked out because complainant had given false particulars and data about his brother before opposite party No.2. Hence that marriage proposals were not worked out. Hence complainant and his brother are solely responsible for the acts done by them. There is no deficiency of service from the side of opposite party No.2. Hence complaint may be dismissed.
8. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and he filed one document which is marked as Ext. A1. Ext.A1 is the copy of bill given by opposite party No.1 to complainant on 23/11/2018. Thereafter opposite party No.1 filed affidavit and they filed one document and which is marked as Ext. B1. Ext.B1 is the copy of Licence to conduct a marriage bureau in the name of Desire Matrimonial from 16/07/2019 to 31/03/2020 given by Thrissur Corporation to Jibi. A.G dated 05/09/2019. Thereafter opposite party No.2 filed their affidavit and one document which is marked as Ext.B2. Ext. B2 is the original registration form of Desire communications dated 23/11/2018.
9. Heard complainant and opposite parties. Perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
- If so, reliefs and cost.
10. Point No.1 and 2 :-
Case of the complainant is that opposite parties had cheated him by not arranging a marriage proposal for his brother after receiving money for the same. Complainant had produced one document which is a copy of the receipt given by Desire Communication, Dixi tower, Kanjani Road, Pullazhi-PO, Thrissur on 23/11/2018 to complainant after receiving an amount of Rs.1500/-. The above Desire Communication is the opposite party No.1 in this matter. Later he impleaded one Mr. Azees as opposite party No.2 .
11. From that document, it is clear that complainant had paid Rs.1500/- to the Desire communication, which is arrayed as opposite party No.1 in this complaint. While scrutinizing the document Ext.B1, it is clear that one Jibi AG who is the licensee of the above said marriage bureau now .She is the opposite party No1 in CC/267/2019. As per Ext.B1, the date of that document is 05/09/2019 and the period of license is from 16/07/2019 to 31/03/2020. The name of the institution is Desire Matrimonial, Olarikkara. From that document it is clear that on 23/11/2018 the above said Jibi was not the licensee and the valid license was not in her name. As per the version and affidavit of opposite party No.1 which are given by the proprietor Jibi.A.G, stated that she had purchased the above Desire communication Marriage bureau from one Mr.Azees PK, S/o Kochu muhammed , Pattikkaran –House, Cherppu west, Thrissur on 05/09/2019. She has no connection with complainant and does not know the transaction between complainant and Mr. Azees. She did not receive any money from complainant and there is no consumer relation between her and complainant. From the above contentions we are on the opinion that the contentions raised by opposite party No.1 is true. She had taken up that institution only on 05/09/2019. Complainant in his complaint and affidavit stated that he had given Rs.1500/- to opposite party No1 on 23/11/2018. So at that time the above named Jibi, now the proprietor of Desire Matrimonial had no connection with complainant. So she had given the details of Mr. Azees in her version and affidavit. Thereafter complainant had impleaded Mr. Azees as opposite party No.2. Hence the complaint against opposite party No.1 is not justifiable. On 23/11/2018 the name of the institution was Desire communications, but after receiving the ownership from Azees, the name of the institution is Desire Matrimonial. Hence both are different entities. Moreover she had filed the affidavit and version as Jibi A.G, the proprietor now. Hence the case against the existing owner, Jibi.A.G is not maintainable.
12. In his complaint, complainant clearly stated that he had given an amount of Rs.1500/- to the proprietor Desire communication on 23/11/2018 for arranging a matrimonial alliance for his brother. After filing this complaint, complainant filed IA 61/2021 to implead one Mr.Azees as opposite party No.2. After receiving notice opposite party No.2 came before the Commission and stated that he had received Rs 1500/- on 23/11/2018 from complainant for arranging a matrimonial alliance for complainant’s brother through his Desire communication Marriage bureau. But his contention is that complainant had given false and misleading datas about his brother before his marriage bureau. He again stated that the age of complainant’s brother was entirely different and high compared to the details given in the registration form. He again stated that complainant’s brother had already a married man and separated from the earlier relation. Complainant never provided that important datas before the marriage bureau conducted by him at that time.
13. Ext.B2 document submitted by opposite party No.2 before the Commission are the datas given by complainant to opposite party No.2 on behalf of his brother clearly shows that complainant had given the particulars about his brother to opposite party No.2. In that document column 5, the details about the ‘’expected details of the Future partner’’ there clearly mentioned ‘’IInd”. From that document we are on the opinion that those datas are provided by complainant before opposite party No.2 on behalf of his brother regarding the expected details of the future partner of complainant’s brother. But in that document there is no column to mention about the number of marriages of complainant’s brother. Complainant had been filled every column of Ext.B2. It is the duty of opposite party No.2 to direct the complainant to fill every column of their registration form. He can insist the complainant that they will not accept the registration form without filling every column of the registration form. In that document complainant given the personal details of complainant’s brother and there mentioned 45 years as his brother’s age. From that column it is clear that the marriage proposal is for a person who is 45 years of age and height of 5’7 and having medium complexion. Moreover there mentioned ‘’ IInd’’ and again a ‘’3’’ . That column is for the expected details of future partner. That means complainant is ready to accept a marriage proposal of a lady who was already married and he has no objection for accepting a lady whose second and third marriage is over. That means complainant is ready to accept a lady already married or married in the third time for his brother. In other words there mentioned in Malayalam that രണ്ടാം വിവാഹമാണെങ്കിൽ വിശദീകരണം and complainant explained that IInd, 3 rd etc. From the above details we are unable to accept the contention raised by opposite party No2 because complainant had given the expected details of future partner of his brother and all details about his brother. There is no discrepancy in that area. As per Ext.B2 document, we are on the opinion that complainant never gave wrong details about his brother.
14. Opposite party No.2 did not prove the contentions raised by them. It is very easy for them to submit the details of ladies they had approached for the marriage alliance of complainant’s brother. They have no documents to show that complainant’s brother aged above 45 years. Moreover from Ext.B2 document it was learned that there mentioned about the second marriage and complainant’s brother was looking for a married woman. In a normal course, a bachelor will marry a spinster and viseversa. In the usual practice nobody wanted a married lady or married man as their partner. Some exceptions are there also. Opposite party No.2 did not produce documents to show that he had taken initiative for a marriage alliance for complainant’s brother and all his efforts were failed due to the act of complainant and his brother. Opposite party No.2 has not been able to prove that marriage proposals were brought on behalf of complainant’s brother and that everything failed because the complainant gave false information about his brother.
15. Hence there is clear deficiency of service from the side of opposite party No.2. After receiving money, opposite party No.2 did not rendered the services as assured by him to complainant. There is no document to prove that opposite party No.2 had taken steps and initiative for a marriage alliance for complainant’s brother, nothing produced by them. There is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party No.2. As per Ext.A1 document it is clear that complainant had paid Rs. 1500/- to the marriage bureau on 23/11/2018. Opposite party No.2 did not deny that document. But he admitted that he had received the amount for arranging a marriage alliance for complainant’s brother. Hence opposite party No.2 must refund the amount to complainant which already received by him from complainant. Complainant also entitled to get compensation from opposite party No.2, because opposite party No.2 did not provide the services as offered by him to complainant after receiving money. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite party No.2 is deficient in service.
16. We allow this complaint as follows:-
- The opposite party No.2 is directed to refund Rs.1500/-(Rupees One thousand and five hundred only) to complainant, the amount he had already received from complainant.
- The opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
- The opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 15th day of December, 2022.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1
Ext.A1 : Copy of bill given by opposite party No.1 to complainant on 23/11/2018.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 & B2
Ext.B1 : Copy of Licence to conduct a marriage bureau in the name of Desire
Matrimonial from 16/07/2019 to 31/03/2020 given by Thrissur Corporation
to Jibi. A.G dated 05/09/2019 .
Ext.B2 : Original registration form of Desire communication dated 23/11/2018.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
