E-Paper
Chandigarh: Search portal to pay ₹5,000 for failing to provide ad service
The Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a search and discovery firm to pay ₹5,000 compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to a Panchkula resident
The Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a search and discovery firm to pay ₹5,000 compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to a Panchkula resident and towards litigation costs after it failed to provide services to the complainant despite taking his money.
Just Dial Limited has also been directed to refund ₹7,080 charged from the complainant.
Complainant Kamal Rahti purchased an advertisement plan from Just Dial Limited worth ₹28,320 on October 14, 2023.
He paid an advance of ₹4,720 through Google Pay and also paid an instalment worth ₹2,360 on November 10, 2023. The person who sold the plan to the complainant introduced himself as the team leader of the company and promised to provide the services.
However, the company failed to provide the promised services. The complainant called one Deep Kumar on November 10, 2023, to remind him of the promises, but he made the excuse that he was in his hometown and unable to accomplish the desired work. On November 13, 2023, the complainant lodged his concern on the company website and to the customer care number but nothing was done.
In its reply, Just Dial denied that their representative promised that the complainant would be provided with the listing, calling, walking, inquiries, additions, verified, catalogue, e-commerce website and JD page sharing option under the package.
It was averred that the same was used by the company’s representative only to explain the various listing services and features provided by them and are self-explanatory that listing, calling, walk-in, inquiries are basic features and verified, catalogue, e-commerce website and JD page sharing options are additional features, to be provided at an additional cost or as complementary features at the discretion of the company.
It is an admitted fact and evident from annexures A and B that the complainant paid ₹4,720 and ₹2,360 to the opposition parties for availing the services in the form of an advertisement plan.
As per the case of the complainant, the OPs did not give any kind of service despite repeated requests and the amount deposited has not been refunded to him on one pretext or the other.
The stand taken by the OPs is that the complainant was given flawless service and denied that the OPs ever responded or did not act upon the request of the complainant.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission headed by president Pawanjit Singh stated that after going through the entire evidence on record it is clear that the complainant has not availed even a single service from the company but despite repeated requests and calls they could not perfectly guide him and therefore, he lodged his concern to the company website on the customer care but no proper handling of the grievance of the complainant was done. The height of unprofessionalism is evident from emails disposing of the complaint of the complainant without solving the same.
“The company has retained the hard-earned money of the complainant without providing service to him, it is safe to hold that their part is deficient and they are liable to refund the paid amount to the complainant,” observed the commission.
Just Dial has been directed to pay ₹7,080 to the complainant(s), along with interest at 9% per annum (simple) from the date of institution of the complaint.
