Matrimonial Site Does Not Guarantee Marriage Or Positive Response : Consumer Court

The bench presided by President H.R.Srinivas, and Member Sharavathi S.M while dismissing the complaint filed by one G. Naveen said:

"It is an admitted fact by the opposite party (OP) that the complainant obtained its membership by paying Rs.59,180. The copy of the cheque is produced. Ex.P2 is the email document, wherein it contains the terms and conditions, wherein the validity of the service is for 88 days and the profile shared are from its website of matrimonet.com limited. It do not guarantee a positive response at all times and do not guarantee a marriage within the service provided."

The complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against Elite Matrimony Services, a matrimonial portal. The complainant obtained membership by paying Rs.59,180, on 17.06,.2019. He alleged that the portal did not provide any details of the prospective brides though it has claimed that it has one lakh profiles to render matchmaking services.  

The complainant claimed that has been mentally harassed and made to suffer financially. The service of the OP is unscrupulous, dishonest and deviated from the assurance given at the time of giving the membership.

Adv. Sri.V.M.Sarangapani appearing for the portal denied that it has not provided the data to the complainant and contended that after obtaining its services complainant has filed this complaint to get a refund of the amount paid, for which he is not entitled to.

Further, it was argued that the complaint is provided with 14 profiles and out of that, the complainant accepted two profiles. It has provided the services as per the package opted by the complainant and hence complainant cannot claim a refund of the amount and the complaint is not maintainable and is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into and its service is only to facilitate the marriage and do not guarantee the marriage. The complaint is frivolous, vexatious with ulterior motives, and hence, prayed the forum to dismiss the complaint.

The forum held "OP has contended in the version that it has shared 14 profiles of which two were accepted by the complainant. On perusing the affidavit evidence of the complainant, the said fact has not been denied by the complainant. Absolutely there is no evidence to show the deficiency in service on the part of the OP."

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgement