In a landmark decision, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Ernakulam has ruled in favor of a complainant, ordering Kerala Matrimony to pay ?225,000 for failing to deliver the matrimonial services it promised. This case, filed under Complaint Case No. CC/19/130, was decided by a bench consisting of President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N.
Case Background
The complainant, who remains anonymous, registered with Kerala Matrimony on December 2, 2010, seeking help to find a life partner. After registration, Kerala Matrimony's representatives visited his home and office, demanding a fee of ?24,100. Despite his initial hesitation, the complainant paid this amount on January 20, 2019, but did not receive a receipt.
Following this payment, the complainant claimed that Kerala Matrimony failed to provide the promised services, such as access to potential bride profiles and arranging meetings. Frustrated by the lack of service, he filed a consumer complaint seeking a refund and additional compensation.
Legal Issues
The Commission addressed several key legal issues:
1. Deficiency of Service: Did Kerala Matrimony fail to deliver the services it promised?
2. Unfair Trade Practice: Were Kerala Matrimony’s actions considered an unfair trade practice?
3. Entitlement to Relief: Was the complainant entitled to a refund and compensation for the deficient service?
Court's Decision
After reviewing the evidence, including social media communications and advertisements provided by the complainant, the Commission found Kerala Matrimony guilty of both service deficiency and unfair trade practices. Despite Kerala Matrimony’s claim of being an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000, it failed to deliver the promised services and did not present any evidence to refute the complainant's claims.
Important Observations
The Commission made several critical observations in its judgment:
- Deficiency in Service: "The opposite party had given attractive displays to catch the attention of seekers but failed to provide the necessary services," the Commission noted, pointing out the misleading nature of Kerala Matrimony's advertisements.
- Unfair Trade Practice: The Commission highlighted that the complainant was "one among many victims of Kerala Matrimony's practices," suggesting a pattern of similar complaints from other users.
- Lack of Evidence: The Commission stressed that Kerala Matrimony did not produce any documentary evidence to support its claims of providing the promised services.
This ruling serves as a significant reminder for service providers about the importance of fulfilling their promises and the potential consequences of failing to do so.
