Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/6/2020

Amrik Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Wedding Wish Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/6/2020
Date of Institution	:	03/01/2020
Date of Decision	:	06/09/2022

 

Amrik Singh s/o Hari Singh r/o H.No.185, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Wedding Wish Pvt. Limited through its Director, SCO No.226, Level II, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh.
2. Ms. Aditi Bhatia Singla Director Wedding Wish Pvt. Limited through its Director SCO No.226, Level II, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh.
3. Shiv Kumar Singla Director, Wedding Wish Pvt. Limited through its Director SCO No.226, Level II, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh [Deleted vide order dated 24.9.2021].

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Nirmal Singh Jagdeva, Counsel for complainant
	:	None for OPs 1 & 2
	:	OP-3 deleted

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.      The facts in brief are, allured by the representations given by the OPs being best Jodi maker in tricity, complainant availed the services of the OPs for his daughter Ms. Gursatinder Kaur, MD Doctor in Pathology. On 24.1.2018, OPs executed the pre-registration form and on 25.1.2018 agreement was entered as per which the complainant had availed Royal Membership against payment of ₹50,000/-.  Averred, OPs had assured that 21 profiles would be put up on the portal within 9 months, but, when they failed to do so, they extended the agreement on 8.10.2018 and provided additional 10 profiles and thereafter on 24.7.2019 provided 6 more profiles. The case of the complainant is that the profiles provided by the complainant were not proper and they had been sending same profiles time and again as well as fake and fabricated profiles.  The complainant has narrated instances of deficiency in service on the part of OPs viz. they sent wrong picture of the boy; sent profiles of non-doctors; sent profile of SC family. In such circumstances, complainant served a legal notice on the OPs and sought refund, but, to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     OPs 1 & 2 contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and admitted that the complainant had availed their services for marriage of his daughter. Denied that they supplied same profiles or that the same were not genuine.  Maintained, as per terms and conditions of the service agreement, OPs were bound to send 21 profiles only but they had sent much more than that i.e. 78 profiles. Stated OPs had provided entire profiles as per desires and preferences of the daughter of the complainant, but, he failed to finalise the profiles. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     In view of the application moved on behalf of the complainant, name of OP-3 was deleted from the array of OPs.
4.     Rejoinder to the written reply of OPs 1 & 2 was filed by the complainant and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case.
7.     Evidently, as per Annexure C-1 and C-2 the complainant paid the amount of ₹50,000/- to the OPs for availing their services for the purpose of getting a good match for his daughter. The sole grouse of the complainant is that despite charging the required amount, OPs could not collect/convey appropriate profiles matching the profile of his daughter – an MD doctor in Pathology. It is abundantly clear from the perusal of emails (Annexure C-9 to C-14) that the profiles sent by the OPs were fabricated ones meaning thereby they were not paying attention to what was the requirement of the complainant. Despite knowing that complainant’s daughter is a well-qualified doctor, OPs were sending profiles of low qualified boys.
8.     It is thus established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the complainant is also writ large. The OPs have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as they ought to have promptly refunded the amount paid to the complainant, which they failed to do and propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the complainant. At any rate, the OPs even did not bother to redress the grievance of the complainant despite having been approached for the same by the complainant time and again. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, we have no other alternative, but, to allow the present complaint against the OPs.
9.     The complainant in the prayer clause has sought refund of the whole amount paid by him, alongwith interest. However, per material on record, we cannot grant the said relief in toto to the complainant, for the sole reason that for working on the profile of the complainant, the OPs must have used their official machinery/ manpower, for which we deem it appropriate to deduct 10% from the total amount towards administrative charges.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs 1 & 2 are directed as under :-

1. To refund the amount of ₹45,000/- (after deducting 10% towards administrative charges from the membership fee of Rs.50,000/-) to the complainant;
2. to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.     This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/09/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member