Matrimony.com Held Liable For Non-delivery And Loss Of Marriage Videos, Ernakulam District Commission Orders Refund, Rs. 1 Lakh Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia (Member) held Matrimony.com Limited liable for failure to deliver the promised videos of a marriage reception. The District Commission held it liable for deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice. While recognising the sentimental value of the lost videos, the District Commission directed it to refund the service amount and pay a compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh, along with Rs. 20,000 for legal costs. Brief Facts: Mr Ratheesh B. and Mr Dhanesh (“Complainant”) paid Rs. 36,000/- for videography services to Matrimony.com Ltd. (“Opposite Party”). However, due to technical issues, the Opposite Party was unable to deliver the video as agreed upon. This failure caused significant emotional distress to the Complainants, particularly because the video was meant to preserve the last memories of a deceased family member. Despite acknowledging their inability to provide the video, the Opposite Party did not take sufficient action to rectify the situation. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainants filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”) against the Opposite Party. Notices were served to the Opposite Party to appear for the proceedings. However, they failed to do so. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte. Observations by the Commission: At the outset, the District Commission acknowledged that the Complainants were consumers as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They engaged the Opposite Party to provide videography services at a marriage reception. The District Commission perused the evidence presented by them and noted that along with an advance payment, they made subsequent payments totalling Rs. 36,000/-. The agreement was to deliver the videos and the photographs within a month. Further, the District Commission held that the Opposite Party was liable for deficiency in service for its failure to fulfil its contractual obligation. It was also held liable for negligence and unfair trade practice for failure to resolve the technical issues leading to the loss of the videos. The District Commission cited a precedent wherein it was held that non-delivery of wedding albums is considered a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As the opposite Party failed to appear before the District Commission, there was a deemed acceptance of the arguments put forth by the Complainants. Highlighting the gravity of sentimental values attached to the videos, the District Commission directed the Opposite Party to refund Rs. 40,000/- to the Complainants. Further, it was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 20,000 for litigation costs.Case Title: Ratheesh B. and Anr. vs Matrimony.com Limited Case No.: C.C. No. 90/2019 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Matrimony.com Held Liable For Non-delivery And Loss Of Marriage Videos, Ernakulam District Commission Orders Refund, Rs. 1 Lakh Compensation

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Matrimony.com Held Liable For Non-delivery And Loss Of Marriage Videos, Ernakulam District Commission Orders Refund, Rs. 1 Lakh Compensation

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers