Scammed of Rs 6 lakh by fake bride, man wins Rs 60,000 from matrimonial platform

Man relied on platform’s verification assurances

According to the complaint, he registered on the Jodii Matrimony platform on September 20, 2025, in search of a suitable matrimonial alliance.

He alleged that the matrimonial application and its promotional materials repeatedly claimed that the platform offered “100 per cent Safe  and Government ID Verified Profiles”.

Trusting those representations, he upgraded his account to a premium membership by paying a subscription fee of Rs 990.

The complainant stated that after becoming a paid member of the matrimonial app, he received notifications indicating that certain users had viewed and shown interest in his profile.

One such profile was displayed as “Avanthika Fernandes, Goa”. Believing that the profile had undergone the verification process advertised by the platform, he initiated contact with the individual.

According to the complaint, the conversations continued for nearly 45 days. During this period, the individual allegedly assured him of marriage and maintained regular communication.

The complainant claimed that he became emotionally, socially and mentally invested in the relationship due to the trust generated by the platform’s verification claims.

Background of the Dispute

• He registered on Jodii Matrimony on September 20, 2025. He purchased a premium membership by paying Rs 990.
• The platform allegedly advertised “100 per cent Safe and Government ID Verified Profiles.” He came into contact with a profile identified as “Avanthika Fernandes, Goa.”
• The communication on the matrimonial app allegedly continued for around 45 days. He later claimed he was persuaded to participate in an online trading scheme.
• The complainant alleged that he suffered losses amounting to approximately Rs 6.55 lakh due to the matrimonial app. Subsequent verification allegedly revealed that the profile was fake.

Alleged trading scam and discovery of fake profile

The complainant alleged that the trust developed through the matrimonial platform eventually led him to participate in an online trading scheme.

According to him, he suffered financial losses amounting to approximately Rs 6.55 lakh as a consequence. He contended that these losses occurred because he relied on the matrimonial platform’s assurances regarding the authenticity and verification of user profiles.

The complaint further stated that he later attempted to independently verify the identity of the individual behind the profile. During this exercise, he allegedly discovered discrepancies that raised doubts regarding the authenticity of the account on the matrimonial app.

The complainant claimed that assistance from a professional contact in the telecom sector revealed that the mobile number linked to the profile was registered in Rajasthan.

According to the complaint, the number was registered in the name of “Munna” and not in the name of “Avanthika Fernandes.”

This allegedly contradicted the profile’s representation that the individual was a woman residing in Goa. The complainant therefore alleged that the profile was fake and fabricated.

He further argued that the existence of such a profile on a platform claiming government-ID verification reflected a failure to conduct proper KYC and identity checks.

Complaint sought refund, compensation and recovery of losses

Aggrieved by the alleged conduct of the platform, the complainant approached the consumer commission seeking multiple reliefs.

He sought a refund of the Rs 990 premium membership fee paid to the platform. He also claimed Rs 6,55,990 towards the financial losses allegedly suffered through the trading scheme.

In addition, he sought Rs 10 lakh as compensation for mental agony, emotional suffering and loss of matrimonial prospects. The complaint also sought reimbursement of litigation expenses.

Opposite parties did not contest proceedings

The commission noted that notices were issued to both opposite parties during the proceedings. The first opposite party received notice but did not appear before the commission.

Notice issued to the second opposite party was not returned, and the commission observed that both opposite parties were connected with the same entity.

Consequently, the commission presumed service of notice and proceeded against both opposite parties ex-parte.

Since the allegations remained uncontested, the matter was decided on the basis of the complainant’s affidavit and documentary evidence.

The complainant produced documents showing his registration on the platform and payment of the subscription fee.

Commission refused to award Rs 6.55 lakh claim

• While examining the claim relating to the alleged trading loss, the commission scrutinized the screenshots and payment records produced by the complainant.
• The commission said that the payments reflected in those screenshots had not been made to the matrimonial platform.
• Instead, the transactions appeared to have been made to third parties.
• The commission found no evidence establishing that the alleged loss amount had been paid to or received by the opposite parties.
• In the absence of such evidence, it declined to grant the complainant’s prayer for recovery of Rs 6.55 lakh.
• The commission also said that there was no material connecting those transactions with the opposite parties.
• For that reason, it refused to hold the platform liable for the entire monetary loss claimed by the complainant.

Relief granted by the commission

Although the commission rejected the claim for Rs 6.55 lakh, it accepted the complainant’s allegations concerning the fake profile and deficiency in service.

The forum observed that the complainant had successfully proved his case through the complaint, affidavit and supporting documents.

Accordingly, the commission directed the opposite parties to refund the Rs 990 subscription fee paid by the complainant.

It further awarded Rs 50,000 as compensation for the mental agony and monetary hardship suffered by him. The commission also granted Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses.

The opposite parties were directed to comply with the order within one month from receipt of the certified copy.

The commission clarified that failure to comply with the order would attract interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The interest would apply to the refund amount and compensation until realization.

Significance

The ruling highlights the growing scrutiny faced by online matrimonial platforms over claims relating to profile verification and user safety.

It underscores that assurances regarding verified profiles may create legitimate expectations among consumers using such services.

The decision also demonstrates that while consumer forums may award compensation for proven deficiency in service, claims for substantial financial losses must be supported by evidence directly linking those losses to the service provider.

At the same time, the order serves as a reminder that platforms promoting themselves as safe and verified services may face liability when consumers establish that such assurances were not adequately fulfilled.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact consumer helpline in their respective states (Kerala helpline: 1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Written by Aparajita Prasad. She is an intern with The Indian Express.