Failure To Provide Job Assistance Despite Receiving Multiple Payments, Gautam Buddha Nagar Commission Holds Shine.com Liable

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gautam Buddha Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) bench of Anil Kumar Pundir (President) and Anju Sharma (Member) held 'Shine.com' liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to provide the promised job assistance services to a consumer and for demanding multiple payments without rendering any meaningful service. Brief Facts: Mr Manoj Kumar (“Complainant”) was contacted by Shine.com, a private company which assists people in job hunting. Initially, he received a call on 14th October 2023 from Shine.com with an offer of Rs. 4,600/- for job searching and profile enhancement. Believing that this would enhance his job prospects, the Complainant agreed and made the initial payment. However, the Complainant was subjected to continuous pressure from Shine.com through numerous calls and emails. He was allegedly coerced into making additional payments on various instances. These demands were made under the guise of providing further services by Shine.com. As a result, the Complainant ended up paying a cumulative amount of Rs. 63,114/- on different dates. Despite these payments, the Complainant argued that no meaningful services were provided by Shine.com. Instead, Shine.com allegedly employed unethical and manipulative tactics to extract money. The Complainant's repeated attempts to seek redressal were ignored by Shine.com. Consequently, the Complainant suffered not only financial loss but also mental harassment and emotional distress. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gautam Buddha Nagar (“District Commission”). Shine.com didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte. Observations of the District Commission: The District Commission noted that Shine.com failed to appear despite being duly served with notice and did not file any reply or evidence in the matter. Therefore, it held that the contents of the affidavit and documents submitted by the Complainant were not contravened. The District Commission also observed that the Complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 63,113/- to Shine.com for job assistance services that were neither rendered nor substantiated by any proof of delivery of service. It held that Shine.com not only failed to provide the promised services but also engaged in repeated demands for payment under various pretexts and compelling the Complainant to make multiple transactions. Therefore, the District Commission held Shine.com liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Consequently, it directed Shine.com to refund a sum of Rs. 63,113/- to the Complainant, along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of actual payment. Further, Shine.com was directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as the cost of litigation to the Complainant. Case Title: Manoj Kumar vs Shine.com Case Number: Complaint No. 204/2024 Date of Judgment: 09.04.2025 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Failure To Provide Job Assistance Despite Receiving Multiple Payments, Gautam Buddha Nagar Commission Holds Shine.com Liable

Smita Singh

Tags