Pushpa Girimaji
A matrimonial service provider charged Rs 10,000 from me promising that if I attended a special two-day event organised by them for re-marriages, I would meet at least 35 people with profiles suiting my requirements. However, I was really disappointed to find that there was not even one profile matching my requirement. So, I did not go there the next day and demanded that they refund my money collected on false promise. However, the company is refusing to pay back the entire amount and is offering only 50 per cent on the ground that I attended the event the first day. I feel really cheated, but do not know how to proceed against the company. What should I do? Am I right in demanding full refund of my money?
You are absolutely right in asking the company to return the entire amount paid by you. After all, the money was paid for a purpose — for meeting 35 people that matched your profile and requirement. However, the company did not keep its promise. This constitutes not only deficiency in service, but also an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act and you have every right to demand full refund of your money. In fact, the company should also compensate you for raising your hopes and disappointing you, besides wasting your time. You would have also spent the money on travel to the venue and back. The company must compensate you for the financial loss, mental agony and disappointment.
Write to the company pointing out these factors and tell them that if they do not refund your entire money, you will go to the consumer court and get, in addition to the refund, compensation and punitive damages. Hopefully, the company will see reason in your demand and return your money. If not, you can seek mediation from the mediation cells attached to consumer courts or approach the consumer court directly for relief.
Can you please help with a similar case decided in the consumer court?
Let me quote the case of M/S Wedding Wish Pvt Ltd Vs Manoj Kumar Dhaloch. Here, the complainant approached the matrimonial company for a suitable match for his sister and paid Rs 31,000. As per the contract, the service provider was to arrange 15 profiles of boys within six months, but failed to provide the promised service. The complainant said that all the company did was to send the place of birth, date and time of birth of some boys (for matching the horoscopes), but that information was of no use without their profiles. And no meeting was fixed with any boy.
The complainant, Manoj Kumar Dhaloch, demanded a refund and when the marriage company failed to comply, he filed a complaint before the District Forum II, Chandigarh, which directed the company to refund the amount, pay compensation of Rs 8,000 and costs of Rs 3,000.
Aggrieved, the marriage bureau filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. This was, however, dismissed by the State Commission (First Appeal No 30 f 2015, order dated February 2, 2015), thereby upholding the verdict of the lower forum.
Let me also quote one of the earliest cases on a similar matter (Shri Pathakji vs RC Kapila). Mr Kapila was searching for a suitable groom for his daughter who was studying in the United States and was on a short visit to India. He contacted a marriage bureau that promised to produce three boys in the second week of November for the consideration of the girl’s father. It charged a fee of Rs 2,000 for the same. Half of the amount was paid as advance deposit by Mr Kapila. Besides the other qualifications specified, Mr Kapila was insistent that the boy should be a Brahmin and his horoscope should match that of his daughter.
However, out of the first batch of three boys suggested by the bureau, none was a Brahmin. The second group of three young men recommended by the bureau were Brahmins, but the bureau had not tallied their horoscopes with that of his daughter. In fact, the boys did not even have their horoscopes or the accurate time of their birth. As neither of his conditions was met by the bureau, Mr Kapila demanded his money back and when the bureau did not comply, he sought the help of the consumer court. It directed the bureau to refund the money and also pay Rs 5,000 as damages. (CA: A629 of 1995 decided on September 30, 1996).
from The Tribune https://ift.tt/2HQIY4Q
via Today’s News Headlines
No comments: