Kerala Consumer Commission Orders Matrimony Platform To Pay ₹37,000 For Failing To Provide Promised Services To Dubai Based Customer

A Kerala consumer commission has held a matrimonial services agency guilty of unfair trade practice for allegedly persuading a customer to purchase a higher-priced package by promising personalised matchmaking assistance that was not adequately provided.

The Kollam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed Intimate Matrimony and its managing director to jointly and severally refund ₹7,000, pay ₹20,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs. In its October 9, 2026 order, the commission also directed them to stop misleading consumers with assurances of personalised assistance.

Customer Allegedly Received Unsuitable Profiles

According to the order, complainant Akhil Vinod approached Intimate Matrimony after seeing an online advertisement promoting personalised matrimonial services. He installed the application on July 29, 2025, following which representatives contacted him.

Employed in Dubai, Vinod informed the agency that he could receive voice calls only through BOTIM, while profiles and other communication could be shared on WhatsApp. The agency agreed to the arrangement and assured him that its Kollam branch would provide the services.

Although Vinod initially intended to purchase a basic package costing ₹3,000, representatives allegedly persuaded him to opt for a ₹7,000 plan by promising enhanced matchmaking assistance. He also claimed that he was asked to digitally sign an agreement requiring an additional ₹15,000 if a marriage materialised through the agency.

However, the profiles shared with him were allegedly unsuitable. Despite requesting alternatives, he continued receiving the same profiles, and the agency eventually stopped providing meaningful assistance. His requests for a refund reportedly went unanswered.

Commission Finds Deficiency In Service

The agency and its managing director appeared before the commission on April 29, 2026, but subsequently remained absent and did not file their response. The commission proceeded without their version.

The bench comprising president S K Sreela and member Stanly Harold observed that the complainant had paid for personalised assistance that was not meaningfully delivered.

The commission clarified that matrimonial agencies cannot guarantee a marriage, as the outcome depends on several factors, including the preferences and consent of the individuals involved. However, they remain responsible for providing the services promised under their packages.

“The opposite parties have produced no material explaining the services actually rendered,” the bench observed.

It further held that misleading customers into purchasing enhanced packages without delivering the promised assistance amounted to an unfair trade practice.

Agency Directed To Pay ₹37,000

The commission ordered the agency and its managing director to refund ₹7,000, pay ₹20,000 for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience, and cover ₹10,000 in litigation costs.

The directions must be complied with within 45 days of receiving the order. Failure to do so will attract interest at 9% per annum on the ₹20,000 compensation amount from the expiry of the deadline until payment.

The total amount payable stands at ₹37,000, excluding any interest arising from non-compliance.