DELIVERED BY SRI T. ANAND, M.A. LL.B., PRESIDENT ON BEHALF OF BENCH Complainant filed this complaint U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service on their part and also to pay Rs.10,00,000/- compensation for loss of income sustained by the complainant and further to pay costs of Rs.20,000/-.
2)The facts in brief are as follows:- The complainant is unmarried person and he is in commercial artist profession since 1994 and is familiar in and around Madanapalle town. He is an income tax assessee and is paying Rs.5,000/- as income tax to the Government which is reflected in the Income tax returns for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. He got registered his name with the opposite parties at Madanapalle on 21.07.2012 vide ID No.T-1949497. Subsequently he paid Rs.2,990/- to opposite party No.2 for entry registration fee to join as member in opposite party for a period of 90 days. Believing the words of opposite parties, the complainant took Classic Plus package by paying Rs.2,990/- to the opposite party No.3 at Chittoor on 21.07.2012. Under the said package, they will provided suitable alliances to the complainant by giving 50 contact numbers with 150 horoscopes and three thousand mail addresses. But the contact numbers provided by opposite parties are fake one and not at all useful for his purpose. Again on the advice of opposite parties, the complainant paid Rs.3,000/- on 24.01.2014 at Madanapalli through State Bank of India, Madanapalli branch to the opposite parties account No.3099499021 second time and obtained classic plus package service covering period of 90 days. Again opposite parties have given 50 contact unmatched profiled numbers and they never responded to him when contacted. Again the complainant paid Rs.2,600/- to the opposite parties on 20.11.2014, for obtaining classic package third time covering period of 90 days more. Opposite party No.3 has given 45 profile phone numbers, but when complainant contacted the said phone numbers, they never responded. Believing the words of opposite party No.2 and 3, the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 28.11.2014 to become member of Assisted Matrimony services for 3 months. Under the assisted matrimony services, they will take care in securing suitable bride to the complainant. As per the assisted matrimony service, it is the responsibility of opposite parties to secure suitable alliances to the complainant. Opposite party No.4 sent unmatched 5 profiles with Engineering, M.C.A., M.B.A., & C.A. and other qualifications knowing pretty well that those alliances are not suitable for the complainant, despite complainant submitting his bio-data to the opposite parties with a request to search and settle suitable alliance with minimum qualification as graduation. As per the terms of assisted matrimony, the opposite parties have to send 12 profiles within a week or day by day. But the opposite parties utterly failed to send the minimum profiles within the stipulated time. The profiles sent by opposite parties are not at all suitable to complainant and hence he selected some suitable profiles bearing ID Nos.T-2644470, T-2578804, T-25711683, T-2138840, T-2922828, T-2935607, T-2921642, T-2699110, T-2881097, T-2485383, T-2426290, T-2294301 and sent the same to opposite party No.3 on 01.12.2014, for which there was no response from opposite parties. On 21.12.2014, opposite party No.3 sent six profiles to the complainant with I.D Nos. viz: T-2405207, T-2822580, T-2675223, T-2850832, T-2400934, T-1121948, which are not suitable to the complainant. The complainant contacted opposite parties through phone, but the opposite parties sent message on 05.12.2014 informing that there is technical problem and they will give the status by the next day. But thereafter there was no response from the opposite parties. On 10.12.2014, the complainant again sent message to the opposite parties complaining deficiency of service by the opposite parties. Subsequently, on 11.12.2014, the opposite parties sent four unmatched profiles. The complainant himself selected 29 profiles and sent the same on 11.12.2014 to the opposite parties with a request to take follow up action. But the opposite parties failed to take necessary steps. The opposite parties repeatedly sent unmatched and highly qualified profiles to the complainant, knowing pretty well, that those profiles will not match the complainants requirements. The complainant personally went to opposite party No.2 office at Hyderabad on 07.01.2015, to question the attitude of opposite parties, for which the opposite party No.3 informed that opposite party No.5 is looking after the case of the complainant and as she was not properly working, she was replaced by opposite party No.4 to look after the case of complainant. Opposite party No.3 extended service for 3 months period to 6 months period without charging extra money from the complainant. Opposite party No.4 also utterly failed to provide services in searching suitable matches to him. Opposite party No.4 has stopped to provide services to the complainant on 25.02.2015 by stating that, period of service for assisted matrimony expired and asked the complainant to take fresh assisted matrimonial services. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant sent a complaint on 09.03.2015 to opposite party No.2 for which, they informed the complainant that, they would solve the problem within
24 hours, but they failed to do so. Later the complainant sent several mails to the opposite parties, but in vain. Later the complainant issued legal notice to opposite parties No.1 and 2 on 23.03.2015 calling upon them to look into the complaint allegations and made proper service. Though the opposite parties received legal notice, they did not attend the problem and instead sent message on 27.03.2015 asking the complainant to contact them on phone. But when complainant tried to contact them, there is no response. The complainant suffered mental agony, humiliation and stress due to the acts of the opposite parties and as such, he is unable to concentrate on his profession and thus he sustained loss of income to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. Further he spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards internet, travelling and phone charges. The opposite parties are therefore liable to pay Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant besides Rs.10,00,000/- being the loss of income from the profession of complainant and costs of Rs.20,000/-. Hence the complaint.
3) Opposite parties No.1 and 2 filed written version, whereas opposite party No.3 to 5 remained exparte.
4)In the written version, opposite parties No.1 and 2 contended as follows:- At the outset, the complaint averments are denied in toto. The allegations made in the complaint are vague in nature. The opposite party No.1 owned website by name Bharath Matrimony which acts as a platform to enable the customers to search for a prospective alliance for marriage from the profiles in the database of the opposite party No.1. The profiles in the database are classified on the basis of language, caste and community for easy search by their registered customers. Members are provided with free access of searching profiles from the database of the opposite party No.1 as per the partner preference set by them and shortlist prospective alliances by themselves to proceed further. The search conducted by any member and the results thereof are automatically generated as per the partner preference set by them. The search occurs through the opposite parties website without any intervention from the opposite party or its employees and it is purely based on their pre-set partner preferences. While a member is registering his/her profile in the website of the opposite party, the opposite party does not make any representations or warranties with regard to the contents posted by the members. Therefore, members are expected to exercise their due diligence before proceeding with the shortlisted profile and confirming the alliance for marriage. The opposite party also provides value added facilities to the customers on subscription fee. The classic package is one of such service provided by opposite parties. under the classic package, the member is provided with additional features namely (1) send unlimited personalized messages, (2) view unlimited Horoscopes, (3) view certain number of mobile phone numbers to contact other members directly depending upon the Classic package taken, (4) Priority over free members in search results, (5) Chat with prospects directly, etc.
5) There is another package called the Assisted Matrimony package, which is meant for registered members to save their time in searching the exact matching profiles as per their preferences for their prospective life partner. Under the said package, an employee of opposite party company would be entrusted with the responsibility of attending to requirements of the customers. The responsibility of such employee would be to look after the customers and search for profiles which are available on the opposite party database (www.bharatmatrimony.com and www.communitymatrimony.com). The entire transaction between the member and the petitioner is purely a contractual one and both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions under the Agreement for Assisted matrimony. The complainant duly acted upon terms and conditions of the said agreement. The electronic record of searching profiles are generated by a computer system. The person who is delegated with the responsibility to provide service to a customer is called as Relationship Manager and will act as a one point contact for the customer. The role of relationship manager is restricted and limited to search for matching profiles and sharing the data/information with the customer. This is done on a regular basis until such time that the customers subscription to the service is valid. Upon sharing the data / information, it would be the prerogative of the customer to take it forward by establishing contact with the person whose profile has been shared by the relationship manager of the complainant. The opposite parties obligation under this service is only to search, shortlist profiles that match the preferences of the member and later share such profiles. Once if the opposite parties employee finds a match for the member, it is the members personal choice/decision to choose such shared profiles whom they may think would be a prospective life partner as per their requirements. Once the member informs the relationship manager that they are interested in a particular profile and request for contact detail of the chosen profile, the relationship manager provides the contact details of the member. The complainant made false allegations by throwing blame on the opposite parties in not rendering the matrimonial services. The complainant is still using the services and communicating with the other members for searching matches vide I.D. reference No.T-1949497. Even as per the complainant allegations, no complaint is made out against opposite party No.3. As per the terms and conditions of the assisted matrimony, since the parties agreed for arbitration, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant registered as member of opposite party matrimony website in Dec2011 and after reviewing the website for more than seven months, he became a paid member of the website and choose the self-help classic package in July 2012. Since 2011, the complainant has sent over 260 expressions of interest on his own to various members and has also received 13 expression of interest from various members registered on the opposite parties website. Hence it is clear that, the complainant knew exactly what he was asking for, and how the website works and what the packages were. Opposite party No.3 shop was closed in Jan2014 and the shop is no longer in existence. Opposite party No.4 and 5 were employee of opposite party No.1 Company in Hyderabad and have left the services. The averments regarding income of the complainant and financial loss sustained by him due to the acts of the opposite parties as stated in para No.6(2) of the complaint is denied.
6) Opposite parties specifically denied the allegations in para No.6 and 7 of the complaint and stated that members including complainant who are searching for matrimonial alliance can create an account in their website upon filling the personal details and agreeing to terms and conditions of the website to become a member and they are expected to provide their mobile numbers in order to speed up the process of communication. The allegation that opposite parties gave 50 contact profiles and most of the contact numbers are fake is utterly false. The complainant is called upon to prove the same. The complainant like other users is expected to set their partner preferences to fulfill the search process. Basing on the partner preference set by the member, the search is carried out by other users on their website from the matrimony services. Since 2011, the complainant has been using their matrimonial service website free of cost. The complainant paid Rs.2,990/- in July 2012 after using the website for over 7 months. The affidavit filed by the complainant before this Forum contains false information and is therefore liable to be prosecuted U/Sec.192 and 193 of Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the E-Mails are sent not only to paid members, but also to free members seeking partner preference (Eg. the party seeking alliance has to state their partner preference in their ID at the time of registration) similar to their requirement, the company will forward the profile request to the suitable member through their emails, and the said service is free service. It is therefore false to say that they gave 50 contacts of unmatched profile members and not properly responded to the complainant. During the period covered by classic package, the complainant alone has to search for suitable profiles and cannot throw blame on the opposite parties stating that they provided 50 unmatched profiles to him and not responded properly. The response has to come from the addressed member and not from the opposite party, since the addressed member alone has to decide about the marriage alliance. The opposite parties company website acts as a platform only for its users. Having sent over 260 expressions of interest to prospective alliances and members registered on their website as classic package user, the complainant cannot now blow hot and cold by making false allegations against opposite parties. The allegation that the opposite party No.3 has given 45 profile members to the complainant and none of the profile member matched to complainant is false. The opposite parties never insisted the complainant to become member of assisted matrimony package as alleged by the complainant. Opposite party No.2 was not contacted by the complainant before he joined as member of assisted matrimony package. Opposite parties never compelled the complainant to pay Rs.10,000/- to become member of assisted matrimony package. The opposite party never gave assurance to the complainant that his marriage would be fixed in two months, if he becomes member of assisted matrimony package. The complainant has viewed the relevant terms and conditions of the assisted matrimony which are extracted hereunder: The profile will be searched from BharatMatrimony.com and communitymatrimony.com sites. As you may be aware these two sites put together carry millions of profiles. However, based on your partner preference and other restrictions, special conditions and requirements, which we will get to understand from the welcome call due shortly from a relationship manager, the number of matching profiles may fall. There are no directly registered profiles in AssistedMatrimony.com. We wish to inform you that we do not have any other database, hidden profile, or deleted profiles, or other matrimony sites or any other source from where the profile will be offered to you. It is our endeavour to send your profiles that match your preferences. It is also our endeavour to connect you with prospects in the best possible manner. However, profiles/prospects acceptance of your profile is not in your hands. There is no implied or explicit guarantee or warranty of marriage or alliance.
7) The contents of Para Nos.10 to 15 of complaint are misleading, baseless and false. The complainant had filled in his partner preference while becoming the member of assisted matrimony package by paying Rs.10,000/- on 28.11.2014 and the same reads as follows: Brides Age 24-31 Yrs Height 5Ft 1 In 5 Ft 3 In (154 Cm to 161 Cm) Marital Status Unmarried, Widow, Divorced Physical Status Normal Eating Habits Any Smoking Habits Non-Smoker Drinking Habits Non-drinker Religion Any Mother Tongue Telugu Caste Any Star Any Gothra Any Manglik Not specified Have child No Professional & Educational Preference occupation Any Annual Income Any income Education Bachelors in Arts/Science/ Commerce, Higher Secondary / Secondary, Diploma Location Preference Citizenship India Country Living in India Residing State India Andhra Pradesh Resident Status Any City Any The complainant expressed his partner preference as extracted hereunder: About my Partner:- I seeing, hanest, intallygent, family oriyented, respecting for senior sitizens and 2side family members, talking smooth & sweet, responsiblety person, charming lady, self confidence, difence in enyproblem, and companion throut life. The IDs mentioned by the complainant in Para No.10 of the complaint and their educational qualifications are extracted hereunder: Prospect ID Education T1896210 BSC H4708125 BCOM T2535337 BED T1489123 BCOM T2901335 MSC Further the details of the profiles selected by the complainant himself varied from (i) traders school, to (ii) BSC, to (iii) B.Tech to (iv) Post Graduate Diploma in Management Affairs, as extracted in the table below. Prospect ID Education T2644470 B.Tech T2511683 Trader school T2138840 B.Tech & Height 54 T2922828 BSc T2935607 PGDMA T2921642 B.Tech T2881097 BSc
8) As per the details furnished by the complainant as stated above, he is tried to mislead the Relationship Manager of the opposite parties. All the profile shared with the complainant by the opposite parties matched the requirement of the complainant. It is denied that opposite parties had to send 12 profiles per week and the complainant is called upon to prove the same.
9) The profiles will be searched from Bharatmatrimony.com and communitymatrimony.com sites. Basing on the partner preference set by the complainant provided the same to him with suitable lead profiles. Therefore the question of opposite party not responding to the complainant does not arise. The total profiles identified were 51 (opposite party provided 38 profiles to the complainant and the complainant wanted opposite party to contact 13 profile IDs). The breakup of 51 profiles are mentioned hereunder: Complainant shortlisted 30 profiles; Rejected 7 profiles; No response was received from 14 profile members; 10) Out of 30 profiles shortlisted by the complainant, 3 members (profile) had accepted the complainants profile and the complainant made throughout the three such profile members for prospective alliance. 12 out of 30 shortlisted members profile rejected the profile of the complainant and 15 profile members did not respond to the request for negotiation with the complainant for fixing alliance. It is therefore false to say that, suitable profiles were not sent to the complainant for fixing alliance. Despite the expiry of assisted matrimony package service, the complainant continued to use the free service of opposite parties and has sent 33 expression of interest in 2015 (between 30.05.2015 and 05.07.2015) to various members for marriage proposals. No complaints were received from any other user of assisted matrimony package. The complainant after expiry of 90 days on 26.02.2015 became a free member on their website and not on 25.02.2015 as has been stated by the complainant. Hence there was no need to continue with assisted matrimony services to the complainant by the opposite parties as alleged. The complainant knew very well about the process at the time of taking package which was meant for 90 days. The opposite parties therefore submit that there is no deficiency in service on their part. The contents of Para No.17 of the complaint are utterly false. The complainant searched and saw 300 profiles in total during the period from 2011, till 8th July,2015 by using their website. The averments in para No.18 to 20 of the complaint are also utterly false and denied by the opposite parties. The opposite parties unable to understand how the complainant suffered mental agony, humiliation and stress and how he was unable to concentrate on his profession and how he suffered loss of income of Rs.10,00,000/-. The claim for Rs.9,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.20,000/- towards legal expenses is baseless not legally valid. The relief sought by the complainant is not maintainable. The complainants claim is not sustainable on legal grounds. The litigation initiated by complainant is nothing but abuse of process of law and is therefore liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the compliant. 11) Chief affidavits of Pw-1 and Rw-1 filed. Ex.A1 to A23 and Ex.B1 to B9 are marked on behalf of both the parties. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments. Heard both sides. 12)The point for consideration is:- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant? If so, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed by him? 13)Point:- As per the averments in the affidavit filed by Pw-1, the main grievance of the complainant is that, he approached the opposite party at Madanapalli to get his name registered in the Bharath Matrimony and paid Rs.2,990/- being the entry fee on 21.07.2012 and was allotted matrimonial
I.D.No.T194947. Ex.A3 is the receipt for the said amount dt:21.07.2012. The counter foil issued by State Bank of India for Rs.3,000/- is marked as Ex.A4. Ex.A5 is the another receipt for Rs.2,600/- issued by opposite parties dt:20.11.2014. Ex.A6 is the counter foil for Rs.10,000/- issued by State Bank of India, Chittoor dt:28.11.2014. These documents are not in dispute. Even according to the opposite party, Pw-1 became member of Bharath Matrimony by taking Classic Plus package. The complainant argued that under the Classic Plus package, opposite party has supplied 50 unmatched profile members which are not suitable to him. He again paid Rs.2,600/- on 20.11.2014 and obtained another classic package for 90 days. But the opposite party has given 45 profile contact numbers during that period to Pw-1. Thus Pw-1 had obtained classic plus package three times. It is alleged that the opposite party has sent the suitable profiles to him and further insisted him to take Assisted Matrimony Service by paying another Rs.10,000/-, by giving assurance that he would definitely get suitable match with the assistance of matrimony service. Ex.A7 is the internet copy dt: 29.11.2014 showing enrollment of name of the complainant as subscriber with the opposite parties. Ex.A8 is the Xerox copy of ration card and Ex.A9 is the Aadhar card of the complainant. Ex.A10 is the office copy of legal notice dt:23.03.2015 and issuance of same is also not disputed. Ex.A11 is the copy of welcome to assisted matrimony dt:12.01.2015 and Ex.A12 is the terms and conditions of opposite parties which are also not in dispute. However, the opposite parties have disputed Ex.A13, A14 and A15. Ex.A13 to A23 which are internet copies regarding profiles of matches containing prospective brides details regarding qualification, complexion, height and caste etc. These documents are filed by Pw-1 to show that the opposite parties failed in rendering services as per assurance given to Pw-1. It is the argument of Pw-1 that assisted matrimony services have to search carefully and secure suitable alliance to him. But the opposite party knowing pretty well that, Pw-1 is a graduate, sent profiles of prospective brides, who are more qualified than him for eg: M.B.A., M.C.A., C.A., Engineer etc., and therefore it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of the assisted matrimony service (opposite party). The complainant gave details of I.D. profiles sent by assisted matrimony service (AMS) to him. It is further argued that the opposite parties have to send 12 profiles a week, but they did not stick to the said norms. Instead, same profiles repeatedly sent to him. It is therefore contended that the complainant suffered mental agony, humiliation and stress on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not sending suitable profiles and not arranging interaction with the family of prospective brides i.e., proposed bride for negotiations. 14) Opposite parties counsel contended that complainant became member of www.bharathmatrimony.com by taking classic plus package and thereafter assisted matrimony package. But they denied the allegations made against opposite parties. It is argued that as per Ex.B2 Terms and conditions of assisted matrimony.com the parties agreed to binding arbitration and therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. It is further argued that in view of the large quantity of the documents filed by the complainant; this Forum cannot try this case summarily as per decision reported in SYNCO INDUSTRIES VS. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR finded by Honble Supreme Court. It is further argued that the profile available in the website are fake. The counsel for the opposite parties pointed out that complainant on one hand alleged that, profiles in opposite parties website are fake and on the other hand, he is using the same website for searching suitable alliances. It is further pointed out that, if at all complainant is not satisfied with the services rendered by the opposite parties, he would not have taken classic plus package three times and thereafter assisted matrimony services by paying Rs.10,000/-. There is no explanation offered as to why he was using the website even after filing the case. The opposite parties counsel further argued that opposite parties had shared only those profiles which are suitable to the complainant, as per his preference. It is admitted that complainant was asking for profile with qualification Bachelors in Arts/ Science/Commerce,Higher Secondary/ Secondary, Diploma and if the proposed bride had set the qualification in her partner preference as any or Degree then in the search result of the website, complainant profile will automatically get matched even though the opposite member is Doctor, Engineer, etc. It is argument of opposite party counsel that the complainant himself had contacted prospective brides with higher qualification directly and had interaction with them. The opposite parties contend that they never gave any assurance to the complainant that his marriage would be fixed in two months, if he becomes member of assisted matrimony package. As per Ex.B2 2(B) complainant has been viewing the website of the opposite parties, since 2011 and is well acquainted with the packages and therefore he cannot contend that he is not supplied with the terms and conditions of the opposite parties packages. Further it is argued that opposite parties only make endeavour to send profiles that match the preferences of the members (in this case the complainant herein) and further they endeavour to connect members (Pw-1) with prospects in the best possible manner. But the acceptance or rejection of profile is not in their hands and there is no implied or explicit guarantee or warranty of marriage or alliance. 15) The opposite parties have placed reliance on decision reported in Appeal (Civil) No.7173 / 2002 between Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh, rendered by Honble Supreme Court with regard to the claim of damages and compensation by the complainant. It is contended that the claim is baseless in view of the said decision. Finally it is argued that complainant has not a come to the Forum with clean hands and has totally misrepresented the facts and therefore is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 16) With regard to the contention raised by the opposite parties that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, in view of arbitration clause, it is well settled principle of law as decided in decision reported in CDJ 2013 SC 1161 between ROSEDALE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD., V. AGHORE BHATTACHARYA & OTHERS which is referred as follows: Remedy of arbitration is not only remedy available to grower Rather, it is an optional remedy, and consumer can either seek reference to an arbitrator or file complaint under Consumer Protection Act. 17) From the above said citation, it is clear that the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the act provides additional relief to the consumer. 18) From the written arguments filed by the complainant as well as the arguments advanced by the complainant, it appears that the complainant was made to believe that, if he joins the assisted matrimony service by paying Rs.10,000/-, he is assured of getting suitable marriage alliance, and on that belief, he paid the amount. But the opposite party has not provided services as per the terms and conditions of the assisted matrimony. The opposite parties have filed Ex.B3, which contains the profile login history, express interest sent by the complainant and also the express interest received by him. The complainant has not disputed the same. According to him, as per the terms and conditions of the assisted matrimony.com, one person will be exclusively entrusted by the opposite party for the job of searching suitable alliances for the complainant and that they instead of sending suitable profiles to him, deliberately sent same profiles repeatedly which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. 19) Ex.A11 is the terms of services rendered by assisted matrimony as per which, it is clearly stated that it is their endeavour to send profiles that match preferences of members and it is also their endeavour to connect the members with prospects in the best possible manner and profiles / prospects acceptance of member profiles, in this case complainants profile, is not in the hands of assisted matrimony services rendered by Matrimony.com (opposite party) and it is also made clear in the terms and conditions that there is no implied or explicit guarantee / warranty of marriage / alliances. 20) As seen from Ex.B3 the complainant has used the opposite parties website for searching suitable alliances even after filing the complaint. The relevant entries in Ex.B3 are shown from page 20 to 29, page 30-39. Infact, as per contents of page 39, complainant received 9 express interests from female users. So it cannot be said that, opposite parties have not at all rendered any professional service to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of assisted matrimony. Infact, the complainant had long chat with one Rajani I.D.No.T1439040 and communicated with some other users by sending personalized messages as mentioned in Ex.B3 from page No.53 to 111. This chat is also after filing the complaint. If really complainant is dissatisfied with the assisted matrimony services of opposite parties, he would not have continued to search the profiles of prospective brides in the website of opposite parties. 21) As already mentioned above, the opposite parties only created a platform for the members (complainant herein) to search for alliances through assistance of assisted matrimony. The reasons for not getting suitable marriage alliance may be several and it depends on the perception of individuals. It is not possible for any person to enter into the minds of other persons(complainant), to search alliance which is suitable to him. Only based on particulars given by the members, the matrimony.com will connect profiles to the members and ultimately it is for the member to decide which alliance is suitable to them. In the present case, the complainant could have secured suitable alliance with the profiles sent by matrimony.com, instead he blames the opposite parties for not rendering the services to him. No sufficient material is placed before this Forum by the complainant to prove that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We are therefore of the opinion that, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 22) In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the stenographer and pronounced by us in the open Forum this the (9th) Nineth day of March, two thousand and Seventeen. Sd/- Sd/- Male Member President APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT ORAL EVIDENCE/AFFIDAVITS: PW-1:- Chief Affidavit of the complainant Sri. K.Madhu Babu DOCUMENTS: Ex.A1:- Xerox copy of income tax returns of the complainant for the years 2013- 2014. Ex.A2:- Xerox copy of income tax returns of the complainant for the years 2014- 2015. Ex.A3:- Dt: 21.07.2012 - Receipt for Rs.2,990/- issued by 3rd opposite party i.e. Chittoor branch. Ex.A4:- Dt: 24.01.2014 - Counter foil issued by State Bank of India for Rs.3,000/-. Ex:A5:- Dt: 20.11.2014 - Receipt for Rs.2,600/- issued by the opposite parties (Tirupathi). Ex.A6:- Dt: 28.11.2014 - Counter foil for Rs.10,000/- issued by the State Bank of India, Chittoor. Ex.A7:- Dt: 29.11.2014 - Internet copy about enrolment of the name of the complainant as subscriber with opposite parties. Ex.A8:- Xerox copy of ration card of the complainant. Ex.A9:- Xerox copy of Aadhar card of the complainant. Ex.A10:- Dt: 23.03.2015 - Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A11:- Dt: 12.01.2015 - Xerox copy of welcome to assisted matrimony. Ex.A12:- Dt: 29.11.2014 - Terms and conditions of opposite party. Ex.A13:- Internet copies obtained from the opposite party website for the irregular services by the Anantha Mahalakshmi and Deepika to the complainant. Ex.A14:- Internet copies obtained about the complaint given by the complainant to the opposite parties from 09.03.2015 to 09.04.2015 (9 pages). Ex.A15:- Internet copy about the package duration of six months. Ex.A16:- Internet copies of 15 high education profiles. Ex.A17:- Internet copies as high education profiles. Ex.A18:- Internet copies 3, height difference + case feeling members. Ex.A19:- Internet copies 2, children with caste feeling members. Ex.A20:- Internet copies 5 repetition + caste feeling members. Ex.A21:- Internet copies 11 only caste feeling members. Ex.A22:- Internet copies 7 degree with qualification members. Ex.A23:- Internet copies 7 degree + caste feeling members 1 to 11 are spiral bound. APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES ORAL EVIDENCE/AFFIDAVITS: Rw-1:- Chief affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties Sri. Bijin Das DOCUMENTS: Ex.B1:- The Board of resolution. Ex.B2:- Copy of terms and conditions of www.telugumatrimony.com and www.assistedmatrimony.com Ex.B3:- The profile created by the complainant and available in the opposite party website along with login details, expression of interest send and received and personalized messages send and received. Ex.B4:- Copy of termination letter issued to the landlord of the premises dated 06th January 2014 and possession handing over letter dated 28th January 2014. Ex.B5:- Copy of profile T1896210. Ex.B6:- Copy of profile T2644470. Ex.B7:- Copy of profile M2103648. Ex.B8:- Copy of profile T2610531. Ex.B9:- Copy of profile T2069557. Sd/- Sd/- Male Member President Free copies to:
1. The Complainant.
2. The Opposite Parties.
Comments