By Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
This complaint is filed against the Opposite Party to get refund of the VPP Charges and cost and compensation for the deficiency of service due to the non supply of required details and services.
2. Brief of complaint:- On seeing an advertisement in the Malayala Manorama daily on 18.05.2014 given by the Opposite party the Complainant contacted the Opposite party and given all information about his son and requested the Opposite Party for furnish the details of the advertisement “26 years old, Degree , ordinary family”. The opposite Party after consultation with the parents of the girl's family given an assurance to the Complainant that he will send the details of the said advertisement girl as VPP for Rs.1,400/- believing the words of the Opposite Party the Complainant on 27.05.2014 paid Rs.1,400/- as VPP charges and received the letter No. A 2613, which is send by Opposite party and on looking the cover there was no address and details of the girl mentioned in the advertisement, but provided the name and phone numbers of other 4 persons. When contacted in that numbers also no required information received and also states some of therm’s marriage also over. So the Complainant strongly believes that the Opposite party is cheating the persons by giving false advertisements and he further says that the Act of Opposite party is unfair trade practice or deficiency of service. Hence prayed before the Forum to direct the Opposite party to refund the amount collected as VPP charges and to pay cost and compensation.
3. Notice was served to Opposite Party and Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version and stated that the case is not maintainable as per law and he denied all the allegation raised in the complaint expect which is admitted. And further stated that the Opposite party firm is a reputed firm and till now no such allegation were leveled against Opposite party and this complaint is filed for getting money on an experimental basis. Opposite party admitted that such advertisement were given in news paper and as per the request of Complainant the suitable information were given to Complainant on 26.05.2014. In that reply same addresses were given and on 04.06.2014 also provided the details of 4 girls the Opposite party further stated that the persons registering in Opposite party's firm for demanding the information as per their choice, and as per their choice any information is available that is usually will be handed over to the party, thereafter the party usually contact each other. In this case also 13 address information were given to the Complainant as per their choice. Hence no deficiency of service in caused in the case and also states that the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation since there is no unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite party. And further stated that since the transaction is took place in the Malappuram district, the Malappuram Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is the competent Authority to try the case. Hence prayed before the Forum to dismiss the complaint with a compensatory cost to this Opposite party.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 is marked. Ext.A1 is the postal cover of VP Letter bearing No.A2613, Wherein it can be seen that the sender is Opposite party and the recipient is Complainant and value of VPL is Rs.1,400/-. It shows that Opposite party send the VP letter to Complainant on 27.05.2014. Ext.A2 is the address and details of 4 girls. The Ext.A3 is the Newspaper in which the advertisement is published wherein it can be seen “Christian girl, 26, Degree, ordinary family, 99959,86788, Malabar, Perinthalmanna. Ext.A4 is the postal cover VPL No.G.606, which shows that the Manjeri Branch Office of Opposite party is sender and Complainant is the recipient and the value of VP is Rs.725/- which shows that the branch office of Opposite party also send a VP letter to the Complainant. Ext.A5 is the copy of “details of Candidate”, which is the form wherein it can be seen. Malabar Marriage Information Centre Malappuram, their seal also affixed in the form it is the information filled up by the Complainant about the details of his son.
5. Opposite party filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version and he is examined as OPW1. On perusal of complaint, version, documents, affidavit the following issues are raised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of
Opposite Party?
2. Relief and cost.
6. Point No.1:- Ext.A3 shows that there was an advertisement to the effect that there was a christian girl aged 26 years. It is admitted by Opposite party also. Ext.A2 shows the details and address of 4 girls, wherein the 26 years christian girls details not furnished Ext.A2 is not challenged by Opposite party also. Ext.A1 shows that the Complainant paid Rs.1,400/- as VPL charges to Opposite Party. Ext.A4 not considered since there is no prayer in the Complainant for the amount of Rs.750/-. Ext.A5 is also not considered since the request of the Complainant is accepted by Opposite party and 4 girls details already provided and it is admitted by Opposite Party also.
7. Opposite party has produced one list of 8 girls address and submitted that it is already provided to the Complainant. On perusal it is found that it is not similar to the form of Ext.A2, and it not contain the age, Religion, family details, qualifications of the girls. Hence the Forum is not able to convince that the 26 years old Christain girls details has furnished or not as per Ext.A3 advertisement. Then on a direction by the forum to produce the entire documents by the Opposite Party to connect this Complainant's case, the Opposite party filed affidavit to the effect that “ such document not filled and send by the complainant to my office. Instead he deposed before the Forum that “the applicant filed an application, the copy of same will kept in the office and the details are given to applicants after understanding full details of the applicants. On an application by the complainant as per the advertisement on 18.05.2014 the replay has already given to Complainant. Copy is with me and also deposed that as per the advertisement in Ext.A3 the details were not furnished, it is the clear admission by the Opposite party that he has not furnished the information about the Ext.A3 advertisement.
8. Hence Forum of the opinion that it is a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite party. The point No.1 is found accordingly.
9. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found against the Opposite Party, Opposite Party is liable to refund Rs.1,400/- and to pay cost and compensation and the Complainant is entitled for the same.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and Opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1,400/- (Rupees One thousand and Four hundred) only which is received as VP charges and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as cost of the proceedings to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole sum thereafter.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of July 2015.
Date of Filing:10.07.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Issac Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Muhammed. Owner, Marriage Burro
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Postal cover V.P. Letter A 2613.
A2. Address and details of 4 girls.
A3. Newspaper Advertisement.
A4. Postal cover VP. Letter G 606.
A5. Copy of Details of Candidates.
Exhibits for the opposite Party.
Nil.
