Dt. of filing – 07/03/2018
Dt. of Judgement – 03/07/2019
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant namely Miss. Soumita Pal under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party namely Smt. Anita Saha alleging deficiency in rendering service on her part.
Case of the Complainant in short is that she is a divorcee aged about 40 years. On seeing an advertisement in a daily newspaper namely “Bartaman” in the name of “SM” in the year 2013 her father contacted the Opposite Party for making mediation for her marriage. An amount of Rs.1,850/- was paid to the Opposite Party for registration. Opposite Party then gave contact nos. of 4 nos. of profile through courier but whenever father of the Complainant tried to contact in those number, they were switch off. The father of the Complainant died in the year 2017. Complainant herself thereafter on seeing the advertisement in the Bengali Newspaper contacted the Opposite Party to negotiate her marriage with suitable person. After few days Opposite Party informed the person who was the resident of Bangalore and requested the petitioner to look the profile despite her unwillingness as the said man was the resident of Bangalore. The petitioner went to the Opposite Party’s Office but one another person was sitting instead of the person whose profile was shown to her stating that he was the brother-in-law of the man with whom the marriage negotiation would be held. Since certain irrelevant questions were put, Complainant was not ready to proceed further. Thereafter, Complainant asked for return back of the amount of Rs.1,800/- paid by her but Opposite Party paid no heed. Neither she was issued any receipt for such payment of Rs.1,800/-. Opposite Party again informed the Complainant to pay Rs.6,950/- stating that she will arrange the intending person for the marriage within 120 days. Complainant paid the said sum. But Opposite Party did not give her any profile. On the contrary, she demanded further sum of Rs.12,000/-. So, Complainant sent a notice through her Ld. Advocate on 20/12/2017 requesting the Opposite Party to refund the money but Opposite Party refused to receive the notice. So, ultimately the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant for directing the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and to return sum of Rs.10,500/- and also to return back copy of the divorce certificate and the photograph of the petitioner.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint petition, copy of the advertisement by the Opposite Party in the newspaper “Bartaman”, copy of the receipts dated 16/8/2017 and copy of the notice dated 20/12/2017.
Opposite Party has contested the case by filing written version denying allegations made against her by the Complainant. It is contended by the Opposite Party that the Complainant after going through the terms and conditions have filled up the form and in the receipt it has been clearly mentioned that from the date of registration, Opposite Party will get service for 120 days. Opposite Party had offered to the Complainant three or four bridegrooms for the match making according to the demand of the Complainant. But it could not be finalised in the year 2013. For the second time, the Complainant signed the application form and agreed to pay Rs.6,950/- out of which she paid Rs.4,700/- on 16/8/2017 and remaining Rs.2,250/- was paid on 2/9/2017. Opposite Party then offered to the Complainant three or four bridegrooms according to her demand. But the Complainant never disclosed that she wanted a pet husband for the purpose of looking after her mother. Out of the three or four bridegrooms, one was the resident of Bangalore to which Complainant agreed to marry and went to the office of the Opposite Party to talk to relative of that bridegroom. Opposite Party also supplied the phone number but ultimately Complainant neither contacted with the bridegroom’s family nor gave any response over the telephone. So, service as agreed was provided by the Opposite Party to the Complainant and thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
During the course of the evidence both parties adduced their respective evidence by filing affidavit-in-chief followed by filing questionnaire and reply thereto. Ultimately written notes of argument have also been filed by both sides. Argument has also been advanced by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the respective parties.
So the following points require determination:
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1 & 2
Both these points are taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition.
Admittedly in the year 2012 from the side of the Complainant, Opposite Party was approached for arrangement of bridegrooms and the required fee was paid.
This is an admitted fact that Opposite Party is the sole proprietor of matrimonial agency namely ‘Soulmates’. It is an admitted case of the Complainant that in the year 2013 after making payment of requisite fees three to four contacts number was given along with the profile of the bridegrooms. But according to the Complainant they could not be contacted as their phone remains switch off. But the said claim of the Complainant cannot be relied upon as it is an admitted fact that the Complainant approached the same matrimonial agency for the second time in the year 2017. It is but natural that during the first time if Complainant could not contact in the numbers given to her of bridegrooms, Complainant would not go to the same matrimonial agency for the second time. However, so far as the claim of the Complainant that in the year 2017 when she approached the Opposite Party for making arrangement of bridegrooms and for showing their profile, admittedly profile of one person from Bangalore was shown to her and it appears that there was also meeting by the Complainant to one person. According to the Opposite Party, he was the brother-in-law of the said man who was the resident of Bangalore. It appears from the document that the said proposed bridegroom was Sucharit Dutta. Negotiation ultimately did not proceed further with the said Sucharit Dutta and it appears from the mail filed by the Opposite Party which is sent by the sister of the said Sucharit Dutta on 4/6/2017 that Complainant did not contact any further.
But so far as the payment of Rs.6,950/- by the Complainant to the Opposite Party, it is admitted by the Opposite Party that Complainant paid the said amount on 16/8/2017 and on 2/9/2017 respectively. According to the Opposite Party the service shall be given by the Opposite Party only for 120 days after receiving of the service charge. So, if the payment of Rs.6,950/-was paid on 16/8/2017 and on 2/9/2017 then Opposite Party is liable to provide service for 120 days as per the terms and conditions. According to the Complainant after payment of the said amount Opposite Party did not show any profile. On the contrary she demanded further amount of Rs.12,000/-. Opposite Party has denied the demand of further amount of Rs.12,000/- and has contended that she had sent the profile of three to four bridegrooms to the Complainant. But in this regard there is absolutely no document forthcoming before this Forum. So far as Sucharit Dutta is concerned, it is apparent that the correspondence took place before payment of Rs.6,950/-. So it could be the service agreed to be provided before that. If the Opposite Party has shown the profile of three to four bridegrooms as contended by her, there ought to have some document either sending of the profile and the contact number to the Complainant by courier/post or through mail. If not then there ought to have some register maintained by the Opposite Party reflecting the profile of the candidates shown to the Complainant. But neither any register in this regard nor any other document is forthcoming before this Forum. Opposite Party has filed the profile of two persons namely Debraj Mukherjee and Deb Narayan Ghosh but mere filing of the profile of this two men by itself will not be sufficient to establish the claim of the Opposite Party that she has sent the profile of these men to the Complainant after receiving of the amount of Rs.6,950/- within the period of 120 days as agreed. Since the Opposite Party runs a matrimonial agency it is but natural she will have the profile, of different bridegrooms. So mere filing of the profile, cannot substantiate the claim of the Opposite Party that she had provided the service as agreed. In such a situation, Complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.6,950/- paid by her as there has been deficiency in service on the part of the OP and further she is also entitled to compensation for mental agony suffered by her.
These points are thus answered accordingly.
Hence,
ORDERED
CC/107/2018 is allowed on contest. Opposite Party is hereby directed to refund Rs.6,950/- to the Complainant and further pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- within 2 months from the date of this order failing which the entire sum shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till its realisation. Opposite Party is further directed to return the copy of divorce certificate/divorce order and the photograph of the Complainant within the aforesaid period of two months.
