Failure of a service provider (marriage bureau) to deliver promised services after accepting payment, coupled with a failure to provide terms and conditions or a legal defense, constitutes a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

ORDER

SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for an order directing the OP to refund Rs. 3,000/- as the registration fee and Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

The brief of the complaint:

The complainant is working as a professor in the Nursing College. As per the advertisement of OP the complainant registered his biodata in the OP's marriage bureau. On 25/11/2016 the complainant had paid Rs.3,000/- to OP's institution for his marriage proposal. The OP assured that one bride is at Kasaragod to propose the complainant. But the OP is not ready to take a good decision in favour of the complainant. After receiving the registration fee from complainant the OP is not sure to propose a matter to the complainant. The complainant registered the profile ID in the OP's institution that exist till the date of his marriage. No specific period is mentioned in the profile data. In each and every year the OP assured the complainant that the next time a suitable proposal will come. The complainant's old age parents also waiting for the marriage of their son. But for the last 9 years the OP is not give a good proposal to the complainant. On 24/10/25 the complainant's father was died due to cancer and his ailing mother is also expecting the marriage of his son. But the OP is not ready to arrange a good proposal to the complainant. The act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.

After filing the complaint notice issued to OP. After receiving notice OP is not appeared before the commission and not filed his written version. Hence the commission had to hold that the OP is absent and no version filed. So the OP's name called absent and OP is set ex-parte.

Eventhough the OP has remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by him against the OP. Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 2 documents marking them as Exts. A1 and A2. The complainant was examined as PW1, so the OP is remained absent in this case. At the end the commission heard the case on merit.

Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents of the complainant. Ext A1 is the Registration Form. It clearly shows the member's information, occupation and other details.

Ext A2 is the payment details. It clearly shows that the complainant had paid Rs. 3000/- to OP on 25/11/2016. As per the payment details not provide the terms and condition of the OP's prospectus. The OP is not appeared before the commission and not proved his defence also. So the OP is directly bound to redressal the grievances caused to the complainant. Therefore we hold that the OP is liable to refund Rs. 3000/- to the complainant along with Rs. 3000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 3000/- as the registration fee to the complainant along with Rs. 3000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.3000/- carries 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.