Consumer Complaint against Matrimonial Firm for Deficiency in Service.
PANCHKULA MAN GETS 22K RELIFE AS MATRIMONIAL FIRM FAIL TO FIND GROOM FOR HIS DAUGHTER.
In this post we’ll read about a case which was disposed by Chandigarh District consumer dispute Redressel commission by awarding 22000 rupees relief for a Panchkula based man from an Matrimonial frim for failure in service and for failure to find groom and for his daughter.
Pawan Kumar sharma of Sector 21 Panchkula hired a agency for finding groom for his daughter. For that service he paid 80,500 rupees in the year 2017. Despite assurance of prompt service, the agency failed to setup meeting with shortlisted matches. The company kept sharing profiles, which didn’t meet their requirements. He wrote to them thrice in 2018 to stop sending profiles and issue refund but no avail, following he approached the consumer court. Sycoriaan Matrimonial service limited they provide enough service but the complainant was changing their preferences and rejected the profiles.
Dismissing the argument of the Matrimonial service court found no evidence supporting this arguments. And awarded the plaintiff 22K relief along with litigation fees and services fees paid by him to the Matrimonial frim.
The court said that by not promptly refunding the amount paid and not considering customers grievance is clearly an unfair trade practices.
Section 2(r) of CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019 defines unfair trade practices: unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:—
- the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which,—
- falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model;
- falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade;
- falsely represents any re-built, second-hand, renovated, reconditioned or old goods as new goods;
- represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have;
- represents that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which such seller or supplier does not have;
- makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services;
- gives to the public any warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product or of any goods that is not based on an adequate or proper test thereof.
The court opined that the harassment suffered by the complainant is also writ large. And in the above case there is a clear failure of service from the Matrimonial service limited, which is an unfair trade practices and a offence under Consumer protection Act.
The court award the complainant the relief of 22K and also ordered to pay the litigating cost and refund the amount paid for the service.
This post is written by Revathi Balakrishnan
For case specific advice on consumer matters , one may contact top/best expert Consumer Protection Lawyers in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar Mullanpur Baltana.
More on 99888-17966.
This post covers topics related to deficiency in service consumer protection act, 2019, deficiency in service consumer protection act, 1986, district consumer forum claim limit, deficiency of service legal notice, complaint under consumer protection act, 2019, defect in goods and deficiency in services, deficiency in service by bank cases, definition of service under consumer protection act, 2019.