Pranav B Prem

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), has held Just Dial Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for charging interest on an EMI plan that was advertised as “0% interest” and for failing to refund the payment made by the complainant.

Also Read: Delhi Consumer Commission Directs Qatar Airways To Pay ₹1.5 Lakh For Deficiency In Service And Harassment Of Passenger, Pregnant Daughter

Background

The complaint was filed by Dr. Aman Singla, a dentist and partner of Smile Dental Clinic, Chandigarh, who alleged that Just Dial Ltd. had misled him with a false claim of a 0% EMI advertisement plan. According to the complaint, a sales representative from Just Dial approached Dr. Singla offering an advertisement package to promote his dental clinic. The representative assured that payment could be made through an Axis Bank credit card on a 0% interest EMI scheme. Relying on this assurance, Dr. Singla paid ₹54,141 on 18 January 2020 via his father’s credit card.

However, when the next credit card statement arrived, Dr. Singla noticed that interest and GST were being charged on the EMIs, contrary to the company’s 0% interest claim. He immediately raised the issue through multiple emails sent between March and May 2020, but the company did not resolve the grievance. Instead, Just Dial paused his advertisement service and asked him to take up the issue with the bank. Dr. Singla alleged that this conduct amounted to misrepresentation and unfair trade practice, as the company had falsely promised an interest-free EMI plan and subsequently withheld the refund. Feeling aggrieved, he filed the consumer complaint on 3 November 2020, seeking a refund of ₹54,141, compensation for mental harassment, and litigation expenses.

Contentions

For the Complainant: Dr. Aman Singla contended that he was induced into subscribing to the advertisement plan based on the assurance of a 0% EMI offer. Despite repeated complaints and email correspondence, Just Dial neither refunded the payment nor resolved the issue. He also pointed out that the company paused his services, yet continued to retain his money and allow EMI deductions, amounting to both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

For the Opposite Party (Just Dial Ltd.): Just Dial denied the allegations, stating that the complainant was fully aware of the terms before subscribing. The company claimed that the interest was levied by the bank, not by Just Dial, and that it had offered an upfront discount of ₹8,862 on the total contract value of ₹63,003 to offset the bank’s interest. It asserted that this discount effectively provided the benefit of a “No Cost EMI” and that there was no deficiency in service or misrepresentation on its part.

Commission’s Observations

After hearing both sides and reviewing the email exchanges and credit card statements, the Commission found that:

• Dr. Singla had indeed paid ₹54,141 to Just Dial under the belief that the EMI plan carried no interest, based on the company’s own assurance.

• The credit card statement clearly showed interest being charged on the EMIs, which contradicted the company’s promise of a 0% plan.

• Despite repeated complaints and the suspension of advertisement services, Just Dial neither refunded the payment nor rectified the error.

• The company’s argument about providing a discount to offset the interest was unsupported by any written agreement or evidence showing that such a discount was discussed or accepted by the complainant.

The bench observed: “Since the Opposite Party failed to refund the amount to the complainant despite the advertisement service having been stopped, and retained his hard-earned money without providing any service, it is safe to hold that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.”

Holding Just Dial Ltd. responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission directed the company to:

• Refund ₹54,141 to Dr. Aman Singla with interest at 6% per annum from 18.01.2020 till the date of actual realization.

• Pay ₹10,000 as compensation and litigation expenses within 45 days of receiving the certified copy of the order.

Also Read: ERA & Omkar Realtors Held Liable For Deficiency In Service Over Delay In ‘Omkar Alta Monte’ Project: Maharashtra Consumer Commission

The Commission concluded that Just Dial misled the complainant with a false 0% EMI offer, failed to provide the promised service, and unlawfully retained his money. The order reinforces that advertisers and digital platforms cannot escape liability for misleading offers or disclaimers when they induce consumers into financial commitments based on false assurances.

Casue Title: Dr. Aman Singla Vs. Just Dial Ltd.

Case No: DC/AB1/44/CC/600/2020

Coram: Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President), B.M. Sharma (Member)