Marriage bureau fails to find a match, fined

CHANDIGARH:The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Chandigarh, has directed a matrimonial service provider to refund Rs 82,800 after deducting 10 per cent towards administrative charges from the membership fee of Rs 92,000 for its failure to provide 27 profiles of suitable candidates to a city-based resident, Neetu Sood.

Amarjot Kaur

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, January 14

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Chandigarh, has directed a matrimonial service provider to refund Rs 82,800 after deducting 10 per cent towards administrative charges from the membership fee of Rs 92,000 for its failure to provide 27 profiles of suitable candidates to a city-based resident, Neetu Sood.

In a judgement pronounced by forum president Rattan Singh Thakur and member Surjeet Kaur, the company was asked to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs 7,000 as cost of litigation.

Neetu had filed a case against Wedding Wish Private Limited’s branch office at SCO 226 in Sector 36-D, Chandigarh, alleging that she availed the company’s services by paying them a total of Rs 92,000 on December 29, 2016, and January 9, 2017. Under the royal gold membership, she had asked the company to provide her with 27 profiles of suitable candidates for a period of 12 months, starting from January 6, 2017.

However, the company failed to fulfil its commitments made at the time of the registration. Finding the false claims by the company, the brother of the complainant, who was pursuing her case, demanded a complete refund, including interest and compensation.

On getting a legal notice, the marriage service company in its reply pleaded that as per the service agreement between two parties dated January 27, 2016, it was bound to provide 21 profiles to Neetu, but it had provided 37 profiles as a gesture of goodwill.

It has been urged that out of the 37 profiles, Neetu had rejected 14. Other than that, 12 conferences and one meeting was also organised for Neetu. Accusing Neetu of not giving a green signal to the company and finalising the candidate, the company pleaded that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part.

Neetu had also filed a rejoinder to the written statement filed by the company.

After hearing the arguments of both parties and looking at the evidence — the account statement of Rs 92,000 paid by Neetu to Wedding Wish Private Limited through cheques dated January 29, 2016 and January 9, 2017, and the service agreement dated January 06, 2017 — the court decided that she was entitled to the refund of the amount.

The order reads: “The complainant has sought a refund of the entire amount paid by her, along with interest. However, as per material on record, we cannot grant the said relief to the complainant for the sole reason that for working on the profile of the complainant, the opposite party must have used its official machinery/manpower, for which we deem it appropriate to deduct 10 per cent from the total amount towards administrative charges.”

The case