E-Paper
Chandigarh | Marriage bureau penalised for only lining up ‘unsuitable matches’
In September 2017, complainants availed services of a marriage bureau in Chandigarh and paid ₹50,000; as per service agreement, the complainants were to be shown 21 suitable profiles within nine months, but complainants alleged that bureau only lined up unsuitable matches
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission penalised a marriage bureau and directed it to refund the complainants’ fee after it failed to find a suitable groom.
Observing that the company, Wedding Wish Pvt Ltd, Sector 36, had exhibited a “negligent and careless attitude” in finding a suitable match for the complainants – Gurjeet Singh of Sector 51A, Chandigarh, and his daughter – the commission directed the bureau to refund ₹45,000 (after deducting 10% towards administrative charges from the ₹50,000 membership fee) and to pay the complainant ₹7,000 for causing mental agony and harassment, and ₹5,000 as litigation cost.
The complainant, Gurjeet Singh of Sector 51A, Chandigarh, had published an advertisement in the matrimonial pages of a newspaper. “An executive of the matrimonial bureau got our number from the newspaper, and started calling our office, promising to find a suitable match for my daughter,” Singh alleged.
In September 2017, Singh availed their services and paid ₹50,000 to the company. As per the service agreement, the complainants were to be shown 21 suitable profiles within nine months. However, Singh alleged that they “failed” to line up any suitable match.
“The boys whose profiles were shared were overaged, bald, fat, relatives of the complainants or not of the desired caste. Dissatisfied with their services, Singh sought a refund, but the company refused to return their money,” it was said.
The matrimonial bureau said that the complainants had been satisfied with their services, and had acknowledged the same in a document. They argued that instead of 21 profiles promised in the agreement, they had shown them 46 profiles, and thus, the complaint was not maintainable, and should be dismissed.
The commission observed: “On many occasions the complainants felt humiliated while talking to unknown persons, and defective profiles, which were not in consonance with their requirements, were sent ... it was the negligent and careless attitude of the opposite parties who despite their own terms, often created situations where the complainants instead of finding a suitable match had to face frustration.”
It added:“Merely arranging calls between two parties does not mean they (the company) met the complainants’ requirements.”
