Shine.com Held Liable for Deficiency in Service After Failing to Deliver Job Assistance Despite Repeated Payments: Gautam Buddha Nagar Commission
Pranav B Prem
In a significant ruling against exploitative service practices in the digital job assistance sector, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gautam Buddha Nagar (Uttar Pradesh), held Shine.com guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Commission directed the platform to refund the full amount extracted from the complainant under false promises, along with interest and litigation costs. The Bench comprising Anil Kumar Pundir (President) and Anju Sharma (Member) passed the order on 09.04.2025 in Complaint Case No. 464/2024, filed by Mr. Manoj Kumar, a resident of Greater Noida.
Background of the Complaint
The complainant, Mr. Manoj Kumar, a private-sector employee, alleged that he was induced by representatives of Shine.com, a job assistance portal, to purchase various paid services for job search enhancement. He was first contacted on 14.10.2023 and was offered a basic package for ₹4,660 for job search and profile enhancement services. Convinced by the telecaller’s pitch, Mr. Kumar made the payment.
However, immediately after this, the complainant began receiving repeated calls and emails from Shine.com, urging him to buy additional services. Under the impression that each subsequent payment would yield better prospects or was necessary to continue availing the promised services, the complainant made multiple further payments. These payments were made between October 2023 and January 2024 and included amounts of ₹5,265, ₹9,440, ₹15,342, ₹8,960, ₹13,106, and ₹6,340, culminating in a total payment of ₹63,113.
Despite the payments, the complainant submitted that Shine.com did not provide any meaningful service, nor was there any job opportunity facilitated. Further, when he attempted to raise the issue with the company, his calls and emails were ignored, and no redressal mechanism was offered. The complainant also claimed to have suffered mental agony, emotional distress, and financial loss due to Shine.com's unethical behaviour.
Proceedings Before the Commission
Shine.com, despite being duly served with the notice of proceedings, failed to appear or file any written statement. Consequently, the matter was proceeded ex parte. The Commission noted this non-participation and held that the complainant’s version remained unchallenged.
The complainant submitted a notarized affidavit of evidence, transaction records, and screenshots of communications with Shine.com. The documents demonstrated a clear timeline of services promised and payments made, without any service delivery.
Observations of the District Commission
The Commission found merit in the complainant’s claim and held Shine.com liable for both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It noted that the complainant had been induced into making repeated payments on the basis of false assurances and had received no benefit in return.
The Commission observed: “The opposite party has not appeared despite service of notice and no evidence has been filed on their behalf. Therefore, the facts stated in the complainant’s affidavit and supporting documents remain unrefuted.”
Further, it noted that Shine.com used high-pressure tactics to compel the complainant to make payments for services he did not seek or benefit from. There was no explanation or evidence provided by the opposite party to justify either the service charges or service delivery. Importantly, the Commission emphasized that the complainant’s decision to approach the consumer forum was justified as Shine.com had failed to provide any grievance redressal even after repeated attempts by the complainant.
Reliefs Granted
The District Commission found Shine.com guilty of engaging in coercive billing practices and exploiting consumers through deceptive assurances. Accordingly, it passed the following directions:
Shine.com is to refund ₹63,113 to the complainant.
The amount shall carry simple interest at 6% per annum, effective from the date of filing the complaint (14.03.2024) until the actual date of payment.
Shine.com shall also pay ₹2,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant.
The order is to be complied with within 30 days from the date of the judgment.
Additionally, the order was directed to be uploaded on the Commission's website and communicated to all parties free of cost, as per Section 40(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Cause Title: Manoj Kumar V. Shine.com
Case No: Complaint No. 204/2024
Coram: Shri. Anil Kumar Pundir [President], Smt. Anju Sharma [Member]
[Read/Download order]
