CHANDIGARH: Sending wrong profiles and failing to find a suitable match for the son of a 53-year-old woman is going to cost a matrimonial service provider Rs 76,000.

The district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed Wedding Wish Private Limited to pay Rs 25,000 compensation and litigation cost and refund Rs 51,000 along with 9% interest to a resident of

.

In her complaint, not willing to be named said she was assured she would be provided a suitable match for her son as per her need, priority and preferences. She paid Rs 1,500 as pre-registration charges on March 25, 2019, and Rs 49,500 the next day to become a “Royal Member”. The

obtained her signatures on the service agreement on March 26, 2019, issuing a membership ID code.

In the first week of April 2019, the bureau provided two profiles of “manglik” girls against her instructions. When she objected, the matchmaker sent another profile, which, she said, was “below their status”. She said she requested Wedding Wish to provide profiles as promised but it lingered on the matter and started ignoring her calls.

Initially, the company through its counsel Ankit Gupta appeared before the forum on June 14, 2019, but took numerous adjournments. The bureau finally filed the reply only on December 9, 2019, but that too without evidence.

Subsequently, one more opportunity was again granted to file evidence in support of a written statement on further payment of Rs 2,000 for January 14, 2020. On January 14, instead of paying the previous costs and filing the evidence, the counsel for the bureau pleaded no instructions on behalf of the bureau. their defence was then ordered to be struck off and the case was reserved for orders, according to the forum.

The forum said the company was required to upload 36 profiles in the account of the complainant within nine months according to the agreement. “Complainant required well-researched and suitable profiles for her son but was provided those of manglik girls or below their status. All these absurd profiles were nothing but a waste for the complainant,” the forum said.

“The evidence led by the complainant has gone un-rebutted and uncontroverted as the bureau preferred not to file the evidence. We have no hesitation in our mind to conclude that the company has miserably failed in its professional service by not providing a suitable match for the complainant.” The forum then directed the marriage bureau to pay up.