DCRDC Orders Matrimony.com to Refund Amount and Compensate Complainants For Loss Of Marriage Videos

DCRDC Orders Matrimony.com to Refund Amount and Compensate Complainants For Loss Of Marriage Videos

It had caused emotional distress, as the records were meant to preserve the memories of a deceased family member

The Ernakulam, Kerala bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Matrimony.com Limited liable for failing to deliver the promised videos of a marriage reception.

While recognizing the sentimental value of the lost videos, the bench comprising DB Binu (President), V Ramachandran (Member) and Sreevidhia (Member) stated that the company was negligent and dealt in unfair trade practice. It was directed to refund the service amount and pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.20,000 as legal costs to the complainant.

The complainants, Ratheesh B and Dhanesh paid Rs.36,000 to Matrimony.com (defendant) for videography services. However, due to technical issues, the defendant was unable to deliver the videos, causing significant emotional distress to the complainants, particularly because it was meant to preserve the memories of a deceased family member.

Though Matrimony.com acknowledged its inability to provide the video, it did not take adequate action to rectify the situation.

Aggrieved by it, the complainants approached the DCDRC, which served notices to the defendant. It was directed to appear for the proceedings but failed to do so. Thus, the court ordered proceeding ex-parte.

The DCRDC accepted that the complainants were consumers as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They hired the defendant to provide videography service at a marriage reception. It observed that along with advance payment, the complainants made subsequent payments totaling Rs.36,000. The contract was to deliver the videos and photographs within a month.

The District Commission noted that the defendant failed to fulfil its contractual obligation and made no efforts to resolve the technical issues, leading to the loss of the videos. The judges cited a precedent wherein it was held that non-delivery of wedding albums was considered a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.

Also, since the defendant failed to appear before the DCDRC, it was an acceptance of the complainants’ arguments. The Commission highlighted the gravity of sentimental values attached to the videos and directed it to refund the amount to the complainants and compensate them.