Chandigarh District Commission Holds Just Dial Liable For Failure To Provide Advertisement Services Despite Receiving Payment
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held 'Just Dial Limited' liable for deficiency in service for failure to provide advertisement services under its 'advertisement plan', despite receiving the advance and instalment amount for the same.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant purchased an advertisement plan from Just Dial Limited (“Just Dial”) for Rs. 28,320/-. He paid an advance amount of Rs. 4,720/- via Google Pay. Subsequently, he also paid the instalment amount of Rs. 2,360/- for the plan. Allegedly, the person who was selling the plan claimed to be the team leader and promised the advertisement services. However, the services were not provided. Therefore, the Complainant contacted another point of contact, who gave an excuse for not providing the promised services. The Complainant then complained on Just Dial's website. However, no solution was offered, and the query was closed.
Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”). In response, Just Dial contended that its representative only explained the available service and the Complainant only opted for the basic services worth Rs. 24,000/-. It further contended that to avail of the additional features, either extra costs were required, or it was dependent on Just Dial's discretion.
Observations of the District Commission:
The District Commission observed that despite paying the requisite fee, Just Dial failed to provide any services as per the advertisement plan to the Complainant. It was further observed that Just Dial closed the complaint without addressing the Complainant's grievances properly.
The District Commission also held that the Complainant was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as he paid for services. Just Dial's defence that the services were for a commercial purpose was rejected because the Complainant's coaching institute did not aim to generate profit.
The District Commission held that Just Dial retained the Complainant's money without providing the promised services. Therefore, it was held liable for deficiency in service. The complaint was allowed, and LIC was directed to refund Rs. 7,080/- along with Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.
Case Title: Kamal Rathi vs Just Dial Limited and Anr.
Case No.: CC/9/2024
Advocate for the Complainant: None (Complainant in person)
Advocate for the Opposite Party: Shri Rohit Ummat
Date of Pronouncement: 10.10.2024