Consumer court orders matrimony site to pay ₹60k to man for failure to find his son a match

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bengaluru recently ordered match-making website Dilmil Matrimony to pay a total of ₹60,000 to a man for failing to find his son a suitable bride. [Vijaya Kumar KS v. Dilmil Matrimony]

President Ramachandra MS and members Nandini H Kumbhar and Savitha Airani ruled that the matrimonial site was deficient in providing services it had advertised and promised to the complainant.

"Opposite Party (OP) has stated in their advertisement that they provided very honest Match making services, in which applicants interested can register their names and the OP recommends potential matches from its data as per their desire of applicant...we are of the view that OP is duty bound to share the details of registered members with another registered members. But, the OP failed to produce any evidence or not even a single profile sent to the complainant or otherwise."

The complainant, Vijaya Kumar, approached the office of Dilmil Matrimony on March 17, 2024 and paid ₹30,000 after being given an assurance that they would find a suitable match for his son within 45 days.

However, despite multiple follow-ups and visits to their office, the website failed to provide even a single match.

When Kumar attempted to resolve the issue by contacting the company, they failed to assist him and allegedly used inappropriate language when he asked for a refund.

Kumar sent a legal notice to the website on May 9 requesting a refund, to no avail. This prompted him to file a complaint with the district consumer forum, seeking both a refund and additional compensation for the inconvenience caused to him.

Dilmil Matrimony did not appear before the forum despite being served notice, and thus the Commission proceeded with the case in its absence.

The Commission held that Dilmil Matrimony had failed to deliver the services promised, thus constituting a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It noted that Dilmil Matrimony, by not providing the promised service or showing evidence of even attempting to fulfill its commitment, had breached consumer trust.

It thus directed the website to refund ₹30,000 to the complainant along with interest.

Additionally, the forum awarded Kumar ₹20,000 as compensation for the inconvenience caused, ₹5,000 for mental agony, and another ₹5,000 to cover litigation costs, totalling ₹60,000 in compensation.

[Read Order]