Kerala Matrimony liable for inappropriate services for failure to facilitate the finding of a match for the Complainant's wedding (Image: @ Kerala Matrimony Website)

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Eranakulam bench of D.B Binu (President), Ramachandran V(Member) and Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Kerala Matrimony liable for inappropriate services for failure to facilitate the finding of a match for the Complainant’s wedding. The bench directed the company to refund Rs 4,100 to the Complainant and pay compensation of Rs. 25,000.

The complaint was filed by a Cherthala native (complainant) in May 2019. He told the consumer forum that he had initially entered his biodata on Kerala Matrimony’s website in 2018 but didn’t receive the offered result or support from the organisation.

Later, he was allegedly approached by Kerala Matrimony’s representative at his residence and office, where he was urged to pay Rs 4,100 for a three-month subscription so that he could be matched with a potential bride.

Also, read| Tokyo Government Introduces Dating App To Tackle Dwindling Birth Rate

The complainant also added that he initially sought details of these prospective matches beforehand, but was told that these details would only be given once the fee is paid.

He eventually paid the amount in January 2019. However, after the fee payment was made, he claimed that his calls and attempts to contact Kerala Matrimony went unanswered. Later filed a complaint seeking a refund.

Before the consumer court, Kerala Matrimony countered that the complainant was enrolled in their classic package, which allowed access to multiple profiles and communication Features.

It argued that its role was confined to being an intermediary and providing access to information regarding prospective matches on its system. This information is uploaded by the customers themselves, and Kerala Matrimony has no role to play beyond giving access to such information, it was contended.

It further submitted that the complainant, in this case, had access to several profiles and was allowed to contact 50 numbers associated with such profiles, to explore if a partner could be found among them. The company insisted that it had communicated these terms and conditions clearly to the complainant.

Also, read| Tamil Actor-Singer Premji Ties The Knot With Long-Time Partner Indu

The Commission hence found that the site had given attractive advertisements and jinxed to provide necessary services to the plaintiff, who had registered his name with the company. Nevertheless, the company didn’t produce any evidence to prove that it had rendered the assured services.