Man moves court against matrimonial site after it delivers only 51 of the promised 100 profiles

A matrimonial website in Kerala promised to provide contacts for 100 potential matches but introduced the user to only 51 women. Acknowledging this deficiency in service, the Consumer Commission ordered a refund of ₹20,000.

Using a matrimonial website to find a spouse proved costly for a man. The website had promised to provide contacts for 100 potential brides but delivered only 51. The matter subsequently reached the Consumer Commission, where the man found relief. The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held the website liable for deficiency in service and ordered a refund of ₹15,000 along with ₹5,000 in compensation, totaling ₹20,000.

What was the promise?

The case originated in Kerala. The man had registered on a matrimonial website for marriage purposes, paying ₹25,960. He was assured that profiles would be provided for his match, and the receipt explicitly mentioned the provision of 100 contacts. However, by the time the service period expired, the website had provided only 51 contacts. The man stated that he did not find a perfect match with whom he could proceed toward marriage. On June 19, 2024, the company informed him that his plan had expired and he would need to renew his subscription to continue using the service. He subsequently filed a complaint with the District Consumer Commission.

What was the company’s argument?

The matrimonial website denied the allegations of service deficiency. The company argued that the customer could access matching profiles available on the website himself, and it was not mandatory for the company to send each profile individually. The company further contended that the profiles on the site are verified to ensure user safety and authenticity. Moreover, the customer had purchased the subscription only after accepting the website’s terms and conditions.

The receipt proved to be the crucial piece of evidence

A key aspect of the case was that the receipt held by the customer explicitly promised the provision of 100 contacts. Conversely, the company admitted in its own evidence that it had facilitated only 51 contacts. On this basis, the Kerala State Consumer Commission ruled that since the company had assured the delivery of 100 contacts at the time of accepting payment, it was obligated to fulfill that service. According to the Commission, providing only 51 contacts instead of 100 constitutes a deficiency in service.

What was the District Commission’s initial order?

The matter first came before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam. On November 28, 2024, the District Commission ruled in favor of the customer. It directed the matrimonial website to refund the entire amount of ₹25,960 and pay an additional ₹5,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service. The company subsequently appealed this decision before the State Consumer Commission.