Feedback

Consumer Forum Orders Refund and Compensation Against Kerala Matrimony for Deficiency in Service

Case Title: Kerala Matrimony vs. Complainant
Complaint No: CC/19/130
Date of Judgment: May 15, 2024
Forum: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Presiding Members: Shri. D.B. Binu (President), Shri. V. Ramachandran (Member), and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N (Member)

Overview of the Case

The complainant approached Kerala Matrimony seeking their assistance in finding a life partner. After an initial free registration, the complainant was persuaded to pay ₹4,100 on January 20, 2019, to avail of the "Classic Package" for three months. However, the complainant alleged that Kerala Matrimony failed to provide the promised services and was unresponsive to his calls after the payment.

Despite repeated follow-ups and visits to the office, the complainant did not receive adequate support, prompting him to file a complaint alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practices.

Kerala Matrimony's Defense

Kerala Matrimony contended that:

1. They operate as a portal and intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000, with limited functions restricted to providing access to profiles uploaded by users.
2. They do not guarantee a successful match or marriage, as per their terms and conditions, which were communicated to the complainant.
3. The complainant utilized the features of the package, including accessing 50 phone numbers and sending 11 messages.
4. A payment receipt was issued to the complainant, contrary to his claims.

Forum’s Observations

Deficiency in Service:

• Kerala Matrimony advertised themselves as a reliable platform for finding matches but failed to deliver on their promises.
• The opposite party did not provide evidence to substantiate their claims of service delivery or produce any documents showing adherence to their terms.

Unfair Trade Practices:

• Kerala Matrimony’s advertisements, such as the one marked as Exhibit A5, were deemed misleading and created false expectations among consumers.
• The complainant’s experience, backed by social media communications (Exhibits A1–A4), highlighted a pattern of similar grievances from other users.

Accountability as an Intermediary:

• While the opposite party claimed immunity as an intermediary, the forum noted that Kerala Matrimony’s role extended beyond mere facilitation due to their active solicitation of payment and service guarantees.

Judgment

The forum ruled in favor of the complainant and directed Kerala Matrimony to:

Refund the Registration Fee:

• Pay ₹4,100 with 6% interest per annum from January 20, 2019, until realization.

Compensation for Mental Agony:

• Pay ₹25,000 to the complainant.

Cost of Litigation:

• Pay ₹3,000 as the cost of proceedings.

Compliance Timeline:

• The order must be complied with within 30 days of receipt, failing which further legal action may be initiated.

Key Takeaways

Consumer Protection:

• The judgment reiterates the responsibility of service providers to deliver on promises made during advertisement and solicitation.

Misleading Advertisements:

• Claims made in promotional materials can hold service providers accountable if they fail to meet those standards.

Redress for Online Services: