3 min readChandigarhSep 24, 2025 12:39 PM IST
First published on: Sep 24, 2025 at 12:39 PM IST
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Chandigarh has directed a matrimonial firm to refund Rs 11,000 for failing to send “sufficient” numbers of suitable ‘tall, beautiful, working girl’ profiles to the complainant.
The Commission also ordered for a nine per cent interest with effect from the date of institution of the consumer complaint till the date of actual realization.
The complainant said, on July 8, 2023, he had given a matrimonial advertisement. The next day he received a phone call from the Var-Vadhu Matrimonial Service — claiming to be a very popular matrimonial agency. It further claimed that it would send thousands of profiles suiting the complainant’s requirement.
On the firm’s direction, the complainant shared his bio-data to the firm on WhatsApp. Following which, the firm shared two profiles with the complainant on July 10, 2023, and July 18, 2023, and told him that he would have to pay Rs 11,000 to gain access to more profiles.
The complainant, on July 19, visited the firm’s office and paid Rs 11,000 through. He also filled a form mentioning that he required a ‘tall, beautiful, working girl’.
After the complainant made the payment, the firm shared the profiles of two more girls on August 2, 2023, and September 26, 2023.
However, claiming that the profiles did not match his requirement, the complainant rejected them.
Thereafter, the firm did not send any further profiles in spite of service of legal notice, the complainant said.
Despite due service the firm, however, failed to appear before the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission proceeded against ex-parte via an order on June 28, 2024.
On hearing the matter, the Commission noted that the firm, despite boasting of innumerable profiles of ‘tall, beautiful, working girls’ and receiving Rs 11,000 from the complainant, failed to send any matches for 8 months and rather misbehaved with him.
The Commission observed that, “No doubt, the opposite party (matrimonial firm) was not bound to make a matrimonial match for the complainant but having received consideration from the complainant, it certainly was required to send a sufficient number of suitable profiles to him which it failed to do.
Hence, the said act certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the firm… it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.”
The complainant, on July 19, visited the firm’s office and paid Rs 11,000 through. He also filled a form mentioning that he required a ‘tall, beautiful, working girl’. ( File)
Share
