Delhi

West Delhi

CC/17/372

SUDHIR KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROYAL MATRIMONIAL SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

16 Aug 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST).

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO. 372/2017

Sh. Sudhir  K. Saneja

S/o Late B.L. Saneja

R/o C-11/35, Sector-3

Rohini, Delhi.                                                      .…. Complainant

 

VERSUS

M/s Royal Matrimonial Services,

34, NW-AVE.  Road,

Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.

Through Sh. Gaurav                                            ….Opposite Party

 

 

O R D E R

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant has approached OP after reading advertisement given in Hindustan times. The complainant got impression that OP was providing professionalized matrimonial services.  The complainant there upon  visited  office of OP  where he  met Mr. Gaurav who  represented himself to be  proprietor of OP and informed complainant that OP provided professionalized matrimonial services  and having specialization  in  this  field and also  having  expert team  of counselors and co-ordinators  Who would meet the daughter of complainant whom complainant was  looking for marriage  alliance  and shall ascertain  the likings and disliking and choice of the complainant and the accordingly would forward  the profiles.   Mr. Gaurav also assured that co-ordinators shall provide services in searching suitable profile and arrange the meetings with the people   for whom complainant shall give approval /consent. On the  basis  of  assurances  given by Mr. Gaurav complainant opted  for “ BICHOLIA PACKAGE” FOR Rs. 31,000/-  which was  valid for six months  or  till  the alliance was done whichever would be earlier.   The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by way of cheque dated 18.12.2016, after which the cheque was encashed   by the OP but no profile was sent nor any co-ordinator was appointed and OP has been putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other.  Mr. Gaurav accepted that there was negligence on their part and also agreed to refund the amount but the OP neither proceeded ahead with the services nor refunded the amount.  Hence, the present case. 

2. Notice of this complaint was duly served upon OPs who did not appeared despite service and accordingly was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.09.2017.
3. The complainant was asked to file ex-parte evidence. The complainant led ex-parte evidence by filing affidavit reaffirming the facts of the complaint on oath and relied upon e-mail dated 30.01.2017 Exh. CW 1/1, e-mail dated 06.02.2017 and 09.02.2017 Exh. CW 1/2 and Exh. CW 1/3, copies of emails sent by complainant Exh CW 1/4, Legal Notice, receipt and tracking report Exh CW 1/5 to 1/7 respectively.
4. We have heard the Counsel for complainant and perused. The complainant has substantiated the contents of his complaint by leading evidence by affidavit duly sworn on oath. The documents placed on record support the case of complainant.  Even otherwise we have no reasons to disbelieve the unchallenged and unrebutted testimony of the  complainant.
5. Keeping  in view  the  discussion stated above we  pass an award against the OPs in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-  to be paid by OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing  which OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization. Further we award Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to the record room. 

  Announced this__16th____ day of __August ____ 2019.

 

 

( K.S. MOHI )                                                     (PUNEET LAMBA)                      PRESIDENT                                                              MEMBER