Boy’s wedding wish unfulfilled, matchmaking firm penalised again

The consumer forum has directed the firm - Wedding Wish Private Limited - to refund ₹45,000 and pay a compensation of ₹12,000.

Less than a week after a wedding alliance company was penalised for failure to provide any suitable match for a girl, the same firm has now been fined for failing to provide any match for a boy. The complaint was filed by an Ambala resident who was looking for a match for her brother-in-law. The consumer forum has directed the firm - Wedding Wish Private Limited - to refund ₹45,000 and pay a compensation of ₹12,000 to Neha Aggarwal.

In her petition, Aggarwal said she had availed the services of the firm in 2016 for searching a suitable match for her brother-in-law, by paying ₹50,000 for a 12-month membership. The firm was to upload 21 profiles in her account to arrange meetings for searching a suitable match.

However, finding no progress in the facilitation of the matching partner, the complainant made repeated requests to the firm from August to October 2016 to expedite the profile of her brother-in-law, but the company dilly-dallied the matter on one pretext or the other and eventually, the service agreement expired.

Aggarwal had approached the firm to renew the agreement or refund the amount along with interest, but they refused. She said she had also approached the police authorities against the deficient services provided by the firm.

What the firm said

Wedding Wish, in its reply, claimed the membership fee was non-refundable and non-transferable. They said they were bound to provide 21 profiles to the complainant, but had provided 31 profiles till date, of which four were rejected by her brother-in-law on the basis of appearance of the other party. They company said they had also organised 12 meetings for matchmaking according to the preference of the boy.

‘Defective services’

The forum in its order observed that had the firm sent the suitable profile(s) to the complainant, the matter would have been certainly different. “At any rate, no aggrieved consumer would like to knock the doors of the forum... Here the complainant was so much harassed that she was bound to move to the police for complaining about the defective services,” the order reads. The forum thus allowed ₹45,000 refund to the complainant and ₹7,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment, along with ₹5,000 as litigation costs.