Matrimonial site ‘promised’ 100 contacts but gave only 51, Kerala man wins Rs 20,000

The case arose after the man enrolled himself with the matrimonial website. He paid Rs 25,960 after being assured that suitable matching profiles would be provided for his marriage. According to the order, however, the service did not send him any matching profile.

On June 19, 2024, the service provider informed the man that his plan had expired and that he would have to renew the subscription to continue using it. He then filed a complaint before the district consumer commission, alleging deficiency in service.

‘He could access profiles’

The service provider, on its part, admitted that he had enrolled with them but disputed the allegation of deficiency. It pointed out that he could access matching profiles without them having to be separately provided.

The company also said that the profiles were updated after thorough verification to ensure the genuineness of users and for security reasons. It relied on the website’s terms and conditions, arguing that the man had voluntarily subscribed to the portal with full knowledge of those terms. It, hence, maintained that there was no deficiency in service.

After considering the evidence, the district forum allowed the man’s complaint and directed the matrimonial website to pay him Rs 25,960 and an additional Rs 5,000 as compensation for deficiency in service.

Receipt promised 100 contacts

The number of contacts of prospective brides that were actually provided became central to the state commission’s consideration of the appeal. It noted that the receipt produced by the man stated that he would be provided 100 contacts. However, the company’s own proof affidavit stated that it had provided only 51.

“Since the opposite party (service provider) collected money with an assurance that they would provide 100 contacts, they were duty-bound to provide 100 contacts,” it said. The commission also recorded that although 51 contacts had been provided, he was unable to find any matching contact and could not select any person.

Why refund was reduced to Rs 15,000

The state commission, however, did not agree that he should receive a refund of the entire Rs 25,960 that was paid. Considering that 51 contacts were provided by the service provider during the service period of three months, the commission held that the district forum was not justified in directing repayment of the entire Rs 25,960.

It, therefore, reduced the refund to Rs 15,000 “to meet the ends of justice”. At the same time, it left untouched the separate Rs 5,000 compensation awarded by the district commission for deficiency in service.

Takeaway

Consumers should check what a matrimonial service actually promises before paying and keep the receipt or other proof of the promised services. If a provider fails to deliver the service it expressly assured, the consumer can approach the consumer commission for relief.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Kerala: 1800-425-1550) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories:

Rs 71,000 scooter turns ‘unusable’, disabled Kerala couple wins replacement, Rs 13,000

Navi Mumbai woman wins Rs 6.3 lakh over ‘negligent’ 9 dental root canals in 6 months

Rs 1.57 crore SUV ‘fails’ within weeks, buyer wins replacement, Rs 2.2 lakh payout