January-20: SETTLED IN COURT
- Posted by CERC India
- Posted in JANUARY
Matrimonial agency asked to refund Rs. 50,000
Wedding Wish Pvt. Ltd., a matrimonial agency, contacted Surinder Chahal of Mohali after he gave a newspaper advertisement seeking a match for his doctor daughter Noreen. Impressed by their claims, Noreen registered with the agency after paying a fee of Rs. 50,000. The agency promised to upload 18 suitable profiles to find the desired Jat doctor match within nine months. As none of the bridegroom profiles sent matched the requirements, Surinder terminated the agreement and demanded a refund with interest. Receiving no response from the agency, he filed a complaint with the district forum.
Deficiency in service
The agencyâ€™s contention was that it had neither given 100% assurance nor a specific time limit. It said that it had made every effort to find a suitable match and even given additional profiles without charge.
If a matrimonial agency cannot find a suitable match as promised within a given time limit, it is liable to refund the fees charged.
The Forum observed that the profiles provided were not at all as per requirements. It said that giving inappropriate profiles had wasted the precious time of the complainant and also caused mental agony and physical harassment. The agency had failed miserably in providing professional services.
The matrimonial agency was directed to refund Rs. 50,000 with 9% interest within 30 days, with Rs. 7,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000 towards litigation expenses.
[Source: The order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT Chandigarh, dated 7 October 2019 on Complaint No. 691/2018]
Did You Know
It is a bankâ€™s responsibility to compensate a customer for losing a cheque deposited with it, including the dishonoured ones. This observation came from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) while directing Bank of Baroda to pay over Rs. 3 lakh to a Gujarat resident for losing a cheque of Rs. 3.6 lakhs issued in his favour, which had bounced.
New India Assurance told to pay Rs. 80 L as damages
Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. (KMML) had entered into an agreement with Doshian Ltd. to carry out all works on a turnkey basis for installation of a desalination plant at Kollam. Since the project involved various risks, Doshian Ltd. took a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from New India Assurance Company. During the construction process, the site was flooded resulting in a huge loss to the project. Doshian lodged a claim of Rs. 80 lakhs which was rejected by the insurance company saying that the damages had not occurred at the site but at a distance of 3 km.
Deficiency in service
Doshian approached CERS which filed a complaint before the Gujarat State Commission. It was argued that the desalination plant included the source of water which was 3 km away and the insurance company was aware of this when the policy was taken. The State Commission observed that the insurance companyâ€™s surveyor had admitted that this site was part of the entire site for the plant. It ordered New India Assurance to pay Rs. 80 lakhs with 9% interest along with Rs. 1,00,000 towards delay and compensation for harassment, and Rs. 50,000 towards legal costs.
An insurance company is liable to pay a claim for damages occurring at any location within the entire site which was included when the policy was taken.
The insurance company appealed before the National Commission. It partly allowed the appeal. New India Assurance was directed to pay Rs. 80 lakhs with 9% interest, but only Rs. 25,000 towards delay and legal costs.Â
[Source: The order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, dated 11 September 2019 on First Appeal No. 394/2013]