In a strange case hailing from Chandigarh. A matrimonial firm failed to find a suitable groom for a doctor. Now they will have to compensate their client by paying a fine. The parents of the doctor approached the Chandigarh Consumer Forum after the matrimonial agency did not refund their service charges and refused to even reply to the legal notice sent to them.
The Chandigarh Consumer Forum has directed Wedding Wish Private Limited to return the service charges along with interest, litigation cost and compensation to the customer. This means that the firm will have to pay Rs 62,000 to the customer.
The complainants – Surendra Pal Singh Chahal and his wife Narendra Kaur Chahal – in a complaint filed with the Chandigarh consumer forum on December 6, 2018, had said that they were searching a suitable groom for their daughter, working as a medical officer with government of Haryana, in 2017.
The matrimonial agency had approached them and offered their services. As per the Chahal family’s requirements, the girl was Manglik and they had asked the agency to provide the profiles of grooms within Chandigarh who were doctors, belonging to the Jat community and were Manglik ( a Hindu superstition prevalent in India).
The matrimonial agency had assured the Chahals that they will arrange contact with at least 18 suitable profiles within nine months from the date of the service agreement. The Chahals entered into a service agreement with the matrimonial firm on September 26, 2017 and paid a sum of Rs 50, 000 as membership for the royal package.
The Chahals, in their complaint to the forum, also said that the profiles offered by the service provider were not up to the mark and they did not meet their requirements. The complainant said that when the firm failed to provide the requisite profiles of prospective grooms. They also agreed to extend the search criteria within a radius of 60 kilometres from Chandigarh but in vain.
After wasting a lot of time, the Chahals sent a legal notice to the firm on October 22, 2018. They demanded a refund of the service charges along with interest.
Surprisingly, Wedding Wish did not even reply to the legal notice which compelled the Chahals to approach the consumer forum. Wedding Wish, in its response, had told the consumer forum that they had offered certain profiles which were rejected by the client but later also offered additional profiles without any extra cost.
Wedding Wish had also clarified that they had not given any specific time limit apart from the assurance to their clients. The forum, after hearing the arguments, held the matrimonial service provider responsible for wasting their client’s time as they had failed to organise even a single meeting with a prospective groom.
The consumer forum directed Wedding Wish to refund the service charges – Rs 50,000, along with an interest of 9% per annum apart from Rs 7,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 as litigation cost to the complaints.