Mumbai Consumer Forum Asks Matchmaker To Give Refund To Woman For Failing To Provide Matches As Promised
A consumer forum in Mumbai has directed a matchmaker to pay Rs. 60,000 for failing to propose names of 15 suitors a month, as promised. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission asked Juhu based matchmaker Priya Shah to refund Rs. 55,000 and imposed costs of Rs 5,000 payable within 30 days, in an ex-parte order. In a complaint filed eight years ago, the woman alleged that Shah...
A consumer forum in Mumbai has directed a matchmaker to pay Rs. 60,000 for failing to propose names of 15 suitors a month, as promised.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission asked Juhu based matchmaker Priya Shah to refund Rs. 55,000 and imposed costs of Rs 5,000 payable within 30 days, in an ex-parte order.
In a complaint filed eight years ago, the woman alleged that Shah told her about an established matchmaking practice and promised an average of 15 suitable matrimonial matches per month. This would include emailing prospective profiles, photographs as well as negotiating with the boys' parents and taking all steps that would be required to finalize the marriage.
Accordingly, she hired Shah's services paying Rs. 55,000 by cheque in July 2012 but didn't receive the promised number of profiles. A complaint e-mail sent by her and her father also went unanswered and there was no change in service quality, she alleged.
Finally, on October 25, the woman terminated the match maker's services, sought a refund, and approached the consumer forum after not receiving the amount.
Attorney holder Binoy Gupta represented the complainant. As for the matchmaker, she was initially represented by an advocate but eventually failed to turn up for hearings.
Taking note of Shah's visiting card according to where she claimed to be 'The Match Maker-For Well Educated Elite Class & NRI members',' the panel opined that she was deficient in providing the services that she promised to Complainant."
"From the e-mails on records it can be seen that Complainant and her father have been in touch with OP (Shah) with respect to their requirements constantly but O.P(Shah) has chosen not to reply to the said e-mails," the panel comprising President RG Wankhede, and members Preethi Chamikutty & Shraddha M. Jalanapurkar observed.
In the complaint filed under Section 12(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the woman sought directions to hold Shah guilty of deficiency in services for not finding a suitable matrimonial alliance, despite taking service charges and promising to do so.