O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Petitioner's case is as follows: Petitioner is a Government servent He lost his wife about 20 years back. Two daughters of the petitioner completed their education and will be given in marriage shortly. The petitioner lost his mother about a few years back. According to the petitioner after marriage of his children he has to remain alone and inorder to overcome such a situation he is thinking about a second marriage with a lady working abroad . The 2nd opposite party is a marriage bureau and which is a division of first opposite party . The opposite party has given some advertisement in Malayala Manorama and Mathrubhumi dailies with incomplete details of women. during the month of October 2004. Induced by such advertisement the petitioner over -2- telephone contacted the 2nd opposite party and enquired, about the incomplete details of women, advertised in the daily. The second opposite party refused to entertain the enquiry over telephone. On 1..11..2005 when the petitioner telephoned the opposite party, the office of the opposite party was adamant on the stand that any enquiry shall be entertained only on remittance of an amount of Rs. 1000/-. The petitioner remitted an amount of Rs. 1000/-, Upon receipt of Rs. 1000/-, the opposite party recorded the name and full address of the petitioner and shown him certain photograph of ladies, who are alleged to have approached them for the alliance of remarriage. Further the opposite party told to the petitioner that the Guruvayoor branch of the opposite party has to collect the details of ladies from other branch and the details shall be sent to the petitioner by post. Believing the statement the petitioner returned to home without details. Since no communication was received the petitioner, over telephone, contacted the second opposite party. The office staff of the opposite party asked the petitioner to present at their office on 13..11..2005. On that day the opposite party had given some addresses and telephone numbers of certain ladies. According to him the said descriptions are not in harmony with those that which are advertised in dailies. However, the petitioner contacted in the addresses given by the opposite party on enquiry he found that the addresses and telephone numbers are bogus. The petitioner on 28..11..2005 issued a complaint to the first opposite party naratting all the incidents happened to him. But there was no response from the side of the first opposite party. According to the petitioner the advertisement given by them in medias are false and misleading. Such advertisements were given by the opposite party with the sole -3- intension for canvasing the public, inorder to the extract money from them. The petitioner sent lawyers notice to the opposite party on 9..12..2005. The 1st opposite party sent a reply with untennable contentions. According to the petitioner collecting of service charges of the customers and refusing to render service as promised amounts to deficiency in service so, the petitioner prays for refund of the sum of Rs. 1,000/-,remitted by the petitioner, as registration fee, he claims Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,500/- towards expenses and cost of proceedings. The opposite parties entered appearance and jointly filed their version denying the contension of the petitioner. They admitted the acceptance of Rs. 1000/- as registration fee and according to them a receipt was issued to the petitioner for the said amount. The opposite party states that the nature of service rendered by the opposite party is either giving one year service with regard to marriage proposals or giving 30 proposals to concerned parties. According to the opposite party the petitioner has not produced the death certificate of his wife and the photo of the petitioner . So they cannot proceed further. They states that after registration the petitioner proceeded with the proposals without the help of the opposite party. The opposite party states that they are having high reputation among customers and they are ready to render service to the petitioner even now but, due to the non co-operation of the petitioner they cannot proceed further. So, according to them there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part and they prayed for a dismissal of petition with their costs. The points for determination are: i) Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfairtrade practice on the part of the opposite parties? -4- ii) Reliefs and cost. Evidence of the petitioner consists of his proof affidavit and Ext. A1 to A4 documents and the opposite parties evidence consists of opposite parties affidavit and Ext. B1 to B3. Point No. 1 The petitioners definite case is that the opposite party had received an amount of Rs. 1000/- as registration fees and no receipt was given to the petitioner the opposite party in their version and affidavit filed by them averred that the receipt was given by the opposite party. So the opposite party has a bounden duty to produce the counterfoil or the carbon copy of the receipt in order to prove the positive averment with regard to issuance of the receipt. So the inference that can be drawn is that no such receipt was issued by the opposite party. So the said act of acceptance of money without issuing receipt amounts to an unfair trade practice. The petitioner's case is that all the matrimonial advertisement given by the opposite party is bogus. Inorder to prove the contention of the petitioner he produced the Mathrubhumi daily dated 16..10..2005 the same is marked as Ext. A1. The petitioner states that the opposite party had given such an advertisement in Mathrubhumi News paper dtd:6..10..2005 inviting proposal to a Muslim lady aged 42 residing at Singapoor, and invited proposal to a Nair lady having 42 years residing at Landon and several such advertisement on 30..10..2005, 2..10..2005, 23..10..2005, 16..10..2005. Induced by the said advertisement the petitioner approached the opposite party for marriage proposals. According to the petitioner on 13..11..2005the petitioner had gone the office of the opposite paprty and asked for the details of the proposed ladies as advertised in the newspaper dailys theopposite party supplied details of some ladies -5- with incomplete details. The petitioner issued a letter to opposite party stating all the trobules caused to him, the said letter is produced and marked as Ext. A4. The receipt of the said letter was denied by the opposite party in their version and the proof affidavit. But issuance of such a letter was mentioned by the petitioner in his lawyers notice, the office copy of the said notice is produced and marked as Ext. A7. The reply notice to Ext. A7 is produced and marked as Ext. B1. The counsel for the opposite party argued that the issuance of the letter to the opposite party by the petitioner on 28..11..2005 in Ext. A7 is not denied in Ext. B1 so, the only inference that can be drawn is that what stated in Ext. A7 is true. We are also of the opinion that the said argument of the learned counsel of the petitioner has much importance because the issuance of such a letter has to be denied by the 1st opposite party in Ext. B1. Ext. A10 to A14 are the copies of the communication with regard to the complaint filed by the petitioner to the police authority. On going through the said documents it can be seen that similar complaints are also received to them and cases were registered against such persons including the opposite party under section 420 I.P.C. It is pertenent to note that the opposite party has no case that they have not given any advertisement in news paper dailys on the days mentioned by the petitioner in his petition. The application form which was filled up and given by the petitions is marked as Exhbit B3. Even at the stage of evidence the opposite party has not taken any steps to produce the application forms of the proposed ladies before the forum. The aforsaid act give inference that all the advertisements are with regard to imaginary persons. Even at the stage of evidence the opposite party has not produced any Application Form, like Ext. B3 application form which was filled up and given by the petitioner, of the proposed -6- ladys to whom according to them has given advertisements that give inference that all the advertisement are with regard to imaginary persons. So considering all the facts that come out in evidence we are of the opinion that giving bogus advertisement in newspaper, with regard to illusory ladies in order to induce persons for extracting money from persons like petitioners who are in desire for a marital life is a clear deficiency of service. Definitely the said act of the opposiste party will cause much hardships and mental sufferings to the petitioner. The petitioner has incured expenses for journey from Kottayam to Thrissur and also the petitioner incurred monitary loss for giving complaints to the concerned police authoritys so, he is entitled for compensation. Point No. 2 In view of the findings in point No. 1 petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs sought for. In the result the following order is passed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 1000/-, collected by them as registration fees an amount of Rs. 2000/- is awarded to the petitioner as compensation for his mental sufferings. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- as cost of the proceedings. If the amount is not paid in time the above amounts will carry 12% interest. The opposite parties are also ordered under section 14 ( b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 not to continue the unfair trade practice . The opposite parties are directed to comply the order with within 30 days of receipt of this orders. -7- Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant , corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of March, 2008.
......................Bindhu M Thomas ......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
