Failure To Provide Preferred Bride Suggestions, Chandigarh District Commission Holds Wedding Wish Pvt. Ltd. Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts:

Mr. Manjit Singh (“Complainant No.1”) sought matrimonial services from the Wedding Wish Pvt. Ltd. (“Respondent”) to find a suitable match for Mr. Jaideep Singh (“Complainant No.2”), his nephew. Allegedly, the Complainant visited the Wedding Wish's office, entered into a service agreement and paid Rs. 50,000/-. The terms of the agreement required Weeding Wish to upload 21 profiles within 9 months, but the Complainants claim that it failed to provide suitable matches for Complainant No. 2. The Complainants repeatedly contacted Weeding Wish through telephone and WhatsApp, expressing dissatisfaction with the profiles provided. Frustrated with the lack of proper services, the Complainants visited the Wedding Wish office multiple times, accusing them of deceiving innocent people and extracting their hard-earned money. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainants approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Wedding Wish.

In response, Wedding Wish contested the complaint, contending that it fulfilled the terms of the service agreement by providing 37 profiles instead of the agreed-upon 21 profiles. It argued that the complaint was not maintainable as the service agreement explicitly stated that membership fees are non-refundable and non-transferable, a condition communicated to the Complainants before signing.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that, as per the profile chart provided by the Complainant, the requisite number of profiles were uploaded within the specified time frame. The Complainant himself acknowledged that Wedding Wish uploaded profiles and even made a request for additional complimentary profiles.

Despite the fulfilment of the quantitative aspect of the agreement, the District Commission recognized the Complainant's grievances of feeling humiliated and harassed during interactions with individuals associated with the profiles, and that the Complainant No. 2 received defective profiles not aligning with his requirements. Attributing these issues to the negligent and careless attitude of Wedding Wish, the District Commission found that the Complainant No. 2, instead of finding a suitable match, often faced frustration due to mismatching profiles and particulars. Therefore, the District Commission held Wedding Wish liable of deficiency in services.

In considering the relief sought by the Complainant for a full refund, the District Commission acknowledged that Wedding Wish used official resources for profile management and meeting arrangements. As a result, the District Commission held it appropriate to deduct 50% from the total amount as administrative charges and for services rendered. Consequently, it directed Wedding Wish to refund the Rs. 25,000/- (after the 50% deduction) to the Complainant. Additionally, Wedding Wish was ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment, along with Rs. 7,500/- as costs of litigation incurred by the Complainants.