Consumer forum orders marriage bureau to pay compensation for not bringing suitable proposal for 9 years

The Kannur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered a marriage bureau to refund a client's fee and pay compensation for nine years of unfulfilled proposals [Ajith K.K. v. Sreechakra Marriage Bureau]

A Bench comprising President Ravi Susha and Members Molykutty Mathew and Sajeesh K P held Sreechakra Marriage Bureau liable for deficiency of service, after a nursing college professor from Kannur alleged that despite registering with the agency in 2016 and paying the required fee, he was never given a suitable marriage proposal.

According to the complaint, the man paid ₹3,000 to the bureau on November 25, 2016, after coming across its advertisement.

He claimed the bureau had assured him of a prospective bride from Kasaragod but never followed through. His profile remained active with no fixed validity period, and every year the bureau repeated the same assurance that a suitable match would come "the next time."

The complainant

The complainant told the Commission that his elderly parents had also been waiting for his wedding, and that his father died of cancer in October 2025 while his mother remained ailing. All while the bureau failed to deliver on its promise for nine years, it was alleged.

The bureau neither appeared before the Commission nor did it file a written response.

Hence, the case was heard ex parte. The complainant was examined as a witness and he produced his registration form and payment receipt as evidence.

"The OP has not appeared before the commission and (has) not proved his defence also. So the OP is directly bound to redress the grievances caused to the complainant," the Commission held, in its June 30 order.

The Commission directed the bureau to refund the ₹3,000 registration fee, along with ₹3,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹2,000 towards litigation costs.

The same has to be paid within 30 days.

Failure to comply would attract 9 percent annual interest on the refund amount from the date of the order till realisation.

The complainant had originally sought Rs 15,000 in compensation; the Commission allowed the complaint only in part.

The ruling reinforces that matrimonial service providers can be held accountable under consumer protection law for failing to deliver on promised services, even where as here the agency chose not to contest the claim.

[Read Order]