Detective agency ‘fails to verify’ groom’s background, Haryana man wins Rs 63,000

A man hired a detective agency’s services to look into a prospective groom’s background but the agency allegedly failed to provide satisfactory findings, prompting a Haryana consumer commission to direct it to refund the Rs 12,000 advance and pay Rs 51,000 in compensation and costs.

A bench of president Rahbir Singh and members Jasvinder Singh and Suman Rana of the Yamuna Nagar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission noted that the allegations were “duly supported by documents”. It found that the complainant had repeatedly followed up with the agency over delays, vague responses, and a lack of meaningful, verifiable investigation findings related to the groom.

The complainant had also alleged that a photograph shared by the agency as evidence of the groom’s family home had been taken from an OLX property listing in Uttar Pradesh. “So, the opponent committed negligence and deficiency in service by not providing the services and not properly assisting the complainant, and the complainant is entitled to relief, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case at hand,” the October 19 order stated.

Paid Rs 12,000 advance

The complainant hired an investigation agency offering pre-marital background verification services for a prospective groom, paying Rs 12,000 as an advance, against a total quoted fee of Rs 24,000.

According to the complainant, the agency assured him that the investigation would be completed within 10-12 days and would cover the groom’s parental home, his current residence, and workplace. However, despite repeated follow-ups, the complainant alleged that the agency failed to provide satisfactory and verifiable investigation findings.

He further claimed that the agency shared a photograph purportedly showing the groom’s family home, which he discovered had been taken from an OLX property listing. He accused the agency of misrepresentation and alleged that its staff threatened to take action against him when he confronted them.

After the agency allegedly failed to refund the advance payment despite receiving a legal notice, he approached the commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking redressal for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The opposite party did not appear before the commission despite receiving notice.

Story continues below this ad

‘Failed to give satisfactory services’

The commission observed that the complainant’s WhatsApp conversations and payment receipt established that he had hired the detective agency’s services and paid Rs 12,000 as an advance to check about the groom. The conversations also showed that the agency failed to provide satisfactory services or adequately address the complainant’s grievances.

The commission observed that the complainant had raised his grievances with the agency and sent it a legal notice seeking a refund, but the agency neither resolved his concerns nor returned the money.

“The documents placed on record by the complainant make clear that he raised his grievance with the opponent, but the opponent failed to give satisfactory services to the complainant,” the order noted. Holding the agency liable for negligence and deficiency in service, the commission concluded that the complainant was entitled to relief.

Takeaway

The judgment highlighted the accountability of private detective agencies offering pre-marital background verification services. It underscores that failure to provide satisfactory, verifiable findings and address consumer grievances can amount to deficiency in service. The ruling also reinforces the importance of documentary evidence in consumer disputes and the obligation to deliver promised services professionally.

Story continues below this ad

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Haryana: 1800-180-2087) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories:

Insurance premium ‘not deducted’, SBI told to pay Rs 2 lakh after UP man dies in accident

55-year-old man loses Rs 4.8 lakh to ‘online fraud’, wins Rs 5 lakh from Canara Bank

‘Denied warranty’ after premium phone dies within weeks, Amritsar teen wins Rs 66,000