District consumer dispute redressal forum orders marriage website to refund fee

Chennai: The district consumer dispute redressal forum, Chennai (south), has directed the manager of a noted matrimonial site to refund the amount paid by a person not fixing a suitable groom for his daughter. Pulling up the online portal, the bench, comprising its president B. Ramalingam and member K. Amala, said the portal extorted money from the complainant in the guise of social service without providing proper service.

The petitioner, T. Murugesan, Villivakkam, Chennai, submitted that he was a poor retired railway employee and was searching for a suitable alliance for his daughter. He approached Consim Info P Ltd, Guindy, and registered his daughter’s profile at tamilmatrimony.com. Santhosh, an executive working in the branch, repeatedly called him over phone from April 2012 asking him to join as a paid member of their website to get the best groom for his daughter. Santhosh invited him to his office on May 5, 2012 and advised him to join the “privilege matrimony scheme” for a tariff of Rs15,000.

He assured Murugesan that the fee would be refunded if an alliance was not fixed in three months. Relying on the assurance, Murugesan paid Rs 15,000. Following this, he received profiles for the next three months. But none of them was suitable for his daughter since there was a huge difference in their status or there were horoscope-related issues. After three months, the service was stopped.

On January 5, 2013, Murugesan met Santhosh and asked for a refund of the fee paid. Initially, Santosh agreed to return the amount, but did not respond later. He sent several complaints through email and through registered post. Even after a receipt of the notice from the forum, the manager, Consim Info P Ltd., MRC Nagar, Mandaveli, and its branch in Guindy, did not respond. Hence, they were set ex parte.

The bench said, “The staff collected Rs15,000 from a poor railway employee giving him false hope and assuring him that a suitable groom would be fixed in three months. In spite of receiving the emails and letters from the petitioner, the opposite parties failed to reply, explaining the steps taken towards his daughter’s marriage proposal in three months. Hence, the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service.”The bench directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to repay '10,000 with an interest of 9 per cent per annum and Rs 2,000 towards cost.