DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2024
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 01/11/2023
CC/295/2023
Naveen,
S/o. Mani, Nedupathi veetil,
Chavadiyur Post,
Chavadiyur, Attapady. - Complainant
(Party in Person)
Vs
The Proprietor,
Save the Date Matrimonial agency,
GHS Road, Bank Junction,
Nedumangad (PO),
Trivandum – 695 541. - Opposite party
(OP by Adv. Ms. Anjana A.)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
1. Complainant state that he has registered in OP matrimonial agency. At the time of registration, it was informed that he had to pay registration amount of Rs.4,000/- only when only when matching of horoscope occurs. Contrary to the said agreement the OP charged him Rs.4,000/- for giving biodata of the first potential match. The first contact got married to somebody else. Complainant claims that getting the said match married to someone else is an act of cheating. Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed for return of
Rs. 4000/- and for incidental reliefs.
2. OP agency submitted that they had charged registration fees before handing over bio-data. They had not informed the complaint that registration fee needs to be paid only at the time of matching of horoscope. They had advised the complainant to enter details of caste and star since any person interested in complainant might want that detail. But the complainant did not accede to this demand. Complainant had received an enquiry subsequent to registration. Complainant is not entitled to return of registration fees.
3. Pleadings considered, following issues were framed:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service / unfair trade practice on the part of OP?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
- Any other reliefs?
4. (i) Documentary evidence of complainant comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits
A1 to A5.
(ii) OP failed to file proof affidavit within the time granted. Thereafter on application they were granted leave to file proof affidavit. But they failed to comply with the condition that a cost of Rs.1,000/- was to be paid. Hence proof affidavit is not accepted.
Issue No.1
5. Complainant state that he has registered in OP matrimonial site. At the time of registration, it was informed that he had to pay registration amount of Rs.4,000/- only when only when matching of horoscope occurs. Contrary to the said agreement the OP charged him Rs. 4,000/- for giving biodata of the first potential match. The first contact got married to somebody else.
6. OP countered stating that the agreement was always for payment of registration charges before handing over the first bio-data. In fact, the complainant received an enquiry even before paying the registration charges.
7. Admittedly, there is no document whatsoever from either side to show that there was an agreement between the parties as to when the registration charges had to be paid. Complainant’s grievance pertains to failure to get married. Time frame is not stated in the complaint. His only grievance, as can be seen from the pleadings is that even though he did not care for caste or religion, the OP failed to make searches for such parties and that the first potential match got married to someone else, which constitute an act of cheating.
8. Evidence on the part of the complainant comprised of Exts.A1 to A5.
Ext.A1 is the registration form. Columns pertaining to caste and star are left vacant.
Ext.A2 & A3 are documents evidencing payment of registration fees.
Ext.A4 is the screen shot which shows that the complainant had received phone calls allegedly from the sister of a potential match saying that they are interested in a marital relation with the complainant.
Ext.A5, as per complainant, is a screen shot of a phone call received from OP. But the name shown in Ext.A5 is the same as the one shown in Ext.A4. i.e. Soorya Gayathri. Thus, we cannot come to a conclusion that Ext.A5 is a phone call from the OP.
9. Thus, it goes without saying that the complainant had, in fact, received enquires subsequent to registration. But none of the documents produced by the complainant shows when the registration fee was to be paid. So we cannot subscribe to the view adopted by the complainant that the registration fees has to be paid only at the time of matching of horoscope.
10. We are also unable to subscribe to the view of the complainant that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs just because of one potential match did not ripen to a matrimonial relation, especially when there is no evidence to show that the O.P. agreed to get the complainant a spouse within a fixed time frame.
On going through the time line, registration was on 21/07/2023. Registration fee was paid on 08/08/2023. This complaint was filed on 01/11/2023. From registration to filing of this complaint, the time frame is 3 months and 10 days, which, considering the fact that enquiry was for a matrimonial alliance, is a very minimal period. Seeking return of registration fee within 3 months of registration on the ground the first enquiry did not materialize into a matrimonial alliance is unreasonable.
11. Consequently, based on the pleadings and evidence, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.
Issue No.2 & 3
12 Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. Accordingly, complaint is dismissed.
13. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 12th day of November, 2024.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Printout of registration form
Ext.A2 – Screen shot of google pay payment of Rs.4000/-
Ext.A3 - Print out of receipt
Ext.A4 - Screen shot of phone call received from an interested party
Ext.A5 - Screenshot of phone call made by the OP
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
