Matrimonial site fined for failing to find man potential bride
Client claims the site charged him but did not send him any potential matches
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A matrimonial portal in India has been fined Rs60,000 (£550) for not being able to find a potential match for a male subscriber.
Vijaya Kumar KS came across Dilmil Matrimony, which is based out of Bengaluru in the southern Indian state of Karnataka, and their “very honest matchmaking services” through advertisements on social media and messaging platform Whatsapp, he said in his complaint, according to Deccan Herald.
He approached Dilmil Matrimony on 17 March 2024 with documents and photographs of his son Balaji, for whom he was seeking a prospective bride. The company asked him to pay Rs 30,000 (approximately £275) as their fees, and said they would send him profiles of eligible women within 45 days.
According to local media reports, when Dilmil Matrimony wasn’t able to find Kumar a suitable bride for his son, he visited their office on several occasions. He then went to the office on 30 April 2024 and requested a refund. According to a report in Indian daily The Indian Express, the “staff members allegedly refused his request and verbally abused him during his visit, using offensive language”.
The Independent reached out to Dilmil Matrimony, and spoke to their CEO Ruksar Shabnam, a resident of Bengaluru. She explained that the company policy states that the service they provide is to share suitable profiles of eligible prospective brides and grooms, and not a guarantee of marriage, one that the client was aware of.
“We offer a refund if one of two situations occur: if the service we have promised is not provided and if the client has found a better match from somewhere, both within 45 days of registration. Otherwise, we don’t offer any refunds. The form mentions all of this, which the client had signed.”
She added that the client liked one profile, but the woman’s family was not interested in taking it forward.
“We had shared a few profiles with him, and he found one which he was stuck to. But the opposite family was not interested in their profile. So, clashes with him began from that moment. He was very harsh and very rude. I had told him personally that I would refund the money if he was left unsatisfied. Dilmil Matrimony has never refused to refund.”
Shabnam confirmed that Kumar visited their office in Kalyan Nagar on 30 April and that he visited with police, but stated that he did not make multiple trips. She said staff members could not have refused a refund since she was the only authorised to process any kind of refund request, and denied that anyone misbehaved.
On 9 May, Kumar issued a legal notice, according to local media reports, but Dilmil did not respond.
After a hearing in a consumer court, a court order dated 28 October said: “The complainant did not get a single profile to choose a suitable match for his son, and even when the complainant visited the office of OP (Dilmil), they could not satisfy him or return the amount to the complainant.”
“The commission has no hesitation to hold that there is a clear deficiency rendered by the OP during the course of service to the complainant and that the OP has indulged in unfair trade practices, for which the OP is held liable to refund the amount along with other reliefs granted in the complaint,” the order said.
The court ordered a refund of the fee, Rs 30,000 along with six per cent interest, as well as Rs 20,000 (£183) for services deficiency, and Rs 5,000 (£45) each for mental agony and litigation.
The court also noted: “In the absence of the opposition party and affidavit from their side, the allegations of the complainant are to be held as proved facts.”
Shabnam said her office was originally in Koramangala in Bengaluru, but they had shifted to an area named Kalyan Nagar. She concluded that the legal notice was likely sent to her old office address, which was why she hadn’t received it and was therefore unable to appear in court. Dilmil Matrimony’s website lists a Koramangala address.
She added that she had been in an accident and had fractured her arm, which had led to the delay in offering service to Kumar, and that she found out about the court’s order only through a news report that was shared in a social community of similar matrimonial service platforms.
“The police saw everything when he came with them. They saw the no-refund form that he signed and they told me to let him go to court since I had all the requisite documents. But I did not want to go to court, and I would process the refund. But because I’m on bed rest due to the accident, I would request some time and send him the money as soon as I receive some funds.
“I told him twice that I will refund him. He even has a letter that I have signed which states I will refund him.”
Shabnam has further stated that a client, according to their policy, must send a written request for a refund, and if accepted, the refund will be processed within 45 days. She claims she has received no written request for a refund.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments