By Sri. Ananthakrishnan. P.S, President:-
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- The son of the Complainant is unmarried and working at foreign country. So, he was under the search of a bride for his son having MBA qualification and working at New Zealand. Meanwhile, on 28.3.2021, he saw an advertisement in Malayala Manorama newspaper seeking alliance for an unmarried lady working in New Zealand, having MBA qualification and came in India on leave. Therefore, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party in mobile phone 9544473621 which was given in the advertisement. He enquired about the advertisement to the Opposite Party who agreed to send details of those brides. On 03.04.2021, the Opposite Party sent a list containing biodata of 16 brides with their mobile numbers to the Complainant and thereafter, Opposite Party received Rs.840/- from the Complainant as the registration fees. Then, the Complainant contacted them and realised that the list did not contain the details of any brides working at New Zealand, having MBA qualification and came in India on leave. Even though, there are details of a B.tech graduate working at New Zealand, she was out of India at that time. So, Opposite Party obtained Rs.840/- from him without giving the agreed list and thus cheated the Complainant which caused loss to him. This is deficiency on his service. Hence, this complaint to get back Rs.840/- with compensation of Rs.50,000 and cost of Rs.10,000/-.
3. The Opposite Party filed version contenting as follows:- He denied that he has given an attractive advertisement in Malayala Manorama newspaper as alleged by the Complainant. The Complainant registered his name much earlier in his agency and therefore, he sent the details of 16 brides to him for selecting a suitable one. Thereafter, the Complainant remitted the registration fees. If the Complainant does not want to proceed with that list, the Opposite Party is bound to send another list. If there is any reason for not getting any suitable alliance, the Opposite Party will not be made liable. The Opposite Party never cheated the Complainant and thus there is no deficiency on his service. Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the above pleadings the points are to be considered here are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on Opposite Party?.
- Reliefs and costs?.
5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1, Exts.A1 to A3 from the side of Complainant. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of Opposite Party. Heard both sides.
6. Point No.1:- This is a complaint alleged against the Opposite Party who is conducting a marriage bureau. The grievance of the Complainant is that though the Opposite Party offered a help to get an alliance for his son as per the advertisement in Malayala Manorama newspaper dated 28.3.2021, his list did not contain the bio data of any brides as per his suggestion. The specific case of the Complaint is that he wants a bride for his son having MBA qualification, working at New Zealand and came in India on leave. According to him, the advertisement of Opposite Party is in the same way. Ext.A3 is the advertisement. Ext.A3 provided that “IrkvXy³ bphXn 25/MBA \yqknemânÂ, eohnepv. hnZym`ymkw, tPmen {]iv\anÔ. It contains a mobile number without any address. The case of the Complainant is that he contacted the Opposite Party in this number and the Opposite Party agreed to give details of brides having MBA qualification, working at New Zealand and came in India on leave. It is evident that the Opposite Party sent a list of 16 brides to the Complainant on 03.4.2021. Ext.A1 is the list and Ext.A2 is its postal cover. But, it is an admitted fact that this list does not contain the details of any of the brides having MBA qualification, working at New Zealand and came on leave. The case of the Opposite Party is that serial No.9 Priya in the list is having MBA qualification, working at New Zealand. PW1, the Complainant has given evidence to support his case. PW1 deposed that though he contacted the said Priya through her mobile number, he learned that at that time she was not on leave. The Opposite Party contented that if the Complainant was not satisfied with the first list, he could have asked for the 2nd list within one year and without asking for 2nd list, he filed this case. But, the Complainant stick on his case that he wants a bride having MBA qualification, working at New Zealand and came on leave. Admittedly, no such person is in the list. Thus, the Complainant vehemently argued that the Opposite Party after getting the registration fees cheated him.
7. As already stated, Ext.A1 list did not contain a lady having MBA qualification, working at New Zealand and came on leave. The advertisement as per Ext.A3 seeking alliance for an MBA qualified lady working at New Zealand and came on leave. Though the Opposite Party attempted to deny this advertisement stating that he has not given any such attractive advertisement, Ext.A3 reveals that he sought alliance for a lady having MBA qualification working at New Zealand and came to India on leave. Opposite Party has no case that the mobile number given in the advertisement is not his number. He has no case that he has not given Ext.A3 advertisement. His specific case is that he has not given any wrong or attractive advertisement that too to attract the Complainant. Though he tried to prove that he has sent this list to the Complainant in pursuance to prior registration, he has not produced any documents to substantiate this fact. Therefore, it is established that even though, the Opposite Party sought alliance for such a lady and when the Complainant contacted him for such a lady, he sent details of 16 ladies which does not contain any of the qualifications stated in Ext.A3 advertisement and even then, Opposite Party obtained registration fees from the Complainant. As per Ext.A1, the registration fee is Rs.800/-. But, according to the Complainant, he remitted Rs.840/- to which there is no receipt produced. Since, the Complainant established that the Opposite Party cheated him, no doubt there is deficiency on their service and thus the Complainant is entitled get back Rs.800/- from the Opposite Party. The Complainant wants to get Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. But these are exorbitant amount. So, he is entitled only to get Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses from the Opposite Party. So, this point is answered in favour of the Complainant.
8. Point No.2:- Since, we found point No.1 in favour of the Complainant, the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as discussed above.
In the result, the complaint is allowed partly. The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.800/- (Rupees Eight hundred only) as the registration fee obtained, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the Complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of October 2022.
Date of Filing:-13.07.2021.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Saju Stephen. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of List.
A2. Postal Cover.
A3. Paper Publication. Dt:28.03.2021.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
