Failure To Provide Job-Hunting Assistance, Bangalore District Commission Holds Shine.Com Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainant contacted Shine.com in December 2023, enticed by its offer to assist with job hunting. He paid Shine.com various amounts in different instalments. When Shine.com demanded an additional sum of Rs. 45,000/- for a final requirement to proceed further, the Complainant became suspicious and requested a refund of the amount he had already paid. Despite his efforts, Shine.Com did not return the money. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban, Karnataka (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Shine.Com.

Shine.Com contended that it provided the agreed-upon services to the Complainant. It argued that the additional Rs. 45,000/- was a legitimate requirement for completing the job placement process. It claimed that the Complainant's request for a refund was unfounded as the services were rendered as per the agreement.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Complainant initially paid Rs. 3,292/-, followed by subsequent payments of Rs. 5,192/-, Rs. 9,438/-, Rs. 14,158/-, Rs. 22,302/-, and Rs. 25,369/-.

The District Commission noted that the evidence and documents supported the Complainant's claim that he paid amounts to Shine.Com. Therefore, the District Commission held that the Complainant was entitled to a refund of Rs. 79,751/-.

Additionally, since Shine.com used the Complainant's money without providing any services, the District Commission held it liable for deficiency in services. It directed Shine.com to refund Rs. 79,751/- to the Complainant. Given the mental anguish suffered by the Complainant and the need to issue a legal notice, the District Commission directed Shine.Com to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs.

Case Title: Saurabh Kumar vs The Authorized Signatory, Shine.com

Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 73/2024