NEW DELHI: The Kerala state consumer commission has held a matrimonial website guilty of deficiency in service after it promised a customer 100 contacts but provided only 51 during his three-month subscription. The commission, however, reduced the refund ordered by the district commission from Rs 25,960 to Rs 15,000, noting that the website had provided 51 contacts.Why did the complainant approach the consumer commission?The complainant enrolled himself on M4Marry.com, after paying Rs 25,960 for a plan that promised suitable matching profiles for marriage, according to the Kerala State Consumer Commission’s order dated July 29.The receipt issued to the complainant stated that the service would provide 100 contacts. However, the website provided only 51 contacts, according to the commission.The complainant said he did not receive any suitable matching profile through the service. On June 19, 2024, the website informed the complainant that his plan had expired and that he would have to renew it to continue receiving the service.The complainant then approached the Kottayam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, alleging deficiency in service.The district commission allowed the complaint and directed the matrimonial service provider to refund the entire Rs 25,960. It also ordered the company to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for deficiency in service.The company admitted that the complainant had enrolled on M4Marry.com but disputed that it had failed to provide the promised service.“The opposite party contended that the matching profiles could be accessible to the complainant even without separately providing them. The profiles were updated after thorough verification ensuring the genuineness of the user and for other security reasons. The complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the website and the procedure thereto as he agreed to the terms and conditions,” the commission order states.The company challenged the district commission’s order before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.Why did the commission hold the matrimonial website liable?The bench comprising president Justice B Sudheendra Kumar, member Ajith Kumar D, and member K R Radhakrishnan noted that the receipt issued to the complainant clearly stated that the service provider would provide 100 contacts.However, the company itself admitted in its evidence that it had provided only 51 contacts.“Since the opposite party collected money with an assurance that they would provide 100 contacts, they were duty-bound to provide 100 contacts,” the state commission observed.It held that providing only 51 contacts against the promised 100 amounted to deficiency in service.The commission also noted that the service was provided for three months and that, despite receiving 51 contacts, the complainant did not get a suitable matching contact and was therefore unable to select any person.“Even though 51 contacts were provided, the complainant did not get any matching contact and, hence, the complainant could not select any person,” the commission said.However, the commission disagreed with the district commission’s decision to order a refund of the entire Rs 25,960.It noted that the company had provided 51 contacts and that the service had been available to the complainant for the three-month period mentioned in the receipt.“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that 51 contacts were provided by the opposite party, we are of the view that the district commission was not justified in issuing direction to the opposite party to pay the entire amount of Rs.25,960,” the state commission held.The commission therefore modified the refund amount and reduced it to Rs 15,000.It dismissed the company’s appeal while confirming the district commission’s finding of deficiency in service and the Rs 5,000 compensation awarded to the complainant.The state commission said there would be no separate order on costs in the appeal. The statutory deposit made by the company is to be adjusted towards the amount payable to the complainant.
