Man fails to get any suitable marriage match from matrimonial website: Paid Rs 25,900 for 100 contacts but received only 51; consumer commission orders Rs 20,000 payout

M4Marry.com, a matrimonial portal operated by Malayala Manorama, has been ordered to pay Rs 20,000 to a Kerala man after a consumer commission found it provided only 51 of the 100 marriage contacts it had promised him for Rs 25,960, and that none of those contacts resulted in a suitable match.

Also read: Customer charged Rs 10 extra for a carry bag: Consumer commission orders Rs 30,000 payout

The order was passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 29 July 2026, modifying an earlier ruling by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam, which had directed a full refund of Rs 25,960 along with Rs 5,000 in compensation.


What did M4Marry.com promise for Rs 25,960?

The complainant, a resident of Changanacherry in Kottayam district, enrolled on M4Marry.com by paying Rs 25,960 after being assured by the platform that he would receive suitable matching profiles for marriage. The receipt issued to him, marked as Exhibit A1 before the commission, clearly stated that the opposite party would provide 100 contacts over a three-month period.

The complainant alleged that no matching profiles were sent to him during this period. On 19 June 2024, the platform informed him that his plan had expired and that he would need to renew it to continue receiving the service.

Did M4Marry.com deliver 100 contacts?

M4Marry.com, in its own proof affidavit filed before the commission, admitted that it had provided only 51 contacts to the complainant, not the 100 stated in the receipt.

The platform argued in its written version that matching profiles were accessible to the complainant without being separately provided, that profiles were updated after thorough verification for security reasons, and that the complainant was bound by the terms and conditions he had agreed to at the time of enrollment. It denied any deficiency in service.

The state commission did not accept this position. It held that since the platform had collected money with an assurance of providing 100 contacts, it was duty-bound to deliver all 100. The commission noted that even by M4Marry.com's own admission, only 51 contacts were provided, and stated that this would definitely amount to a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

What did the matrimonial website consumer court order?

The District Commission had directed M4Marry.com to refund the full Rs 25,960 and pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for deficiency in service. M4Marry.com appealed against the refund portion of this order before the state commission.

The state commission, while upholding the finding of deficiency in service, modified the refund amount. It noted that 51 contacts had in fact been provided and that the service was rendered for three months. On this basis, it reduced the refund from Rs 25,960 to Rs 15,000, holding that directing repayment of the full amount would not meet the ends of justice given the partial service rendered.

The Rs 5,000 compensation ordered by the District Commission was left untouched, bringing the total payout to Rs 20,000. The state commission dismissed M4Marry.com's appeal in all other respects and directed that the statutory deposit made by the platform during the appeal be credited towards the amount owed to the complainant.

The bench comprised President Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar, Judicial Member Ajith Kumar D., and Member K.R. Radhakrishnan.

Check the case judgement here: