With the rise of online job portals and paid career-enhancement services, many job seekers are falling prey to misleading telemarketing practices and false promises of guaranteed employment. A notable judgment from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy, in CC No.10 of 2024, Attili Venkata Ravi Kishore vs. Shine.com demonstrates how consumers can successfully claim refunds and compensation when job portals engage in deceptive practices.
This case serves as an important precedent for individuals who unknowingly pay large sums to job portals in the belief that their profiles will be boosted, verified, or fast-tracked for employment.
Background of the Case
The complainant, Attili Venkata Ravi Kishore, a 49-year-old Business Manager from Hyderabad, registered himself on Shine.com, a popular job-search platform. What followed was a series of unsolicited calls, misleading representations, and continuous demands for additional payments.
How the Issue Began
On 26 September 2023, a Shine.com representative contacted the complainant and offered a “Resume Booster Service” for ?3,292. He was assured that this was the only payment required.
However, the very next day, the complainant received another call from one Mr. Rohit claiming to be a Customer Relationship Manager. He stated that the earlier payment was merely a registration amount and that the services would not be activated unless the complainant paid ?5,192 more.
Once this amount was paid, the representative demanded a further ?16,518 for resume writing and professional summary services. Under pressure, and believing he would get a job within 15 days, the complainant paid this amount as well.
Later the same day, he was again asked to pay ?9,556 for job profile verification charges. In total, Shine.com extracted ?34,558 from the complainant without clarity, transparency, or proper disclosure of services.
Complainant’s Realization and Action
Once the complainant suspected foul play, he immediately:
- Sent emails requesting a refund (Ex.A1 & Ex.A2)
- Raised a grievance on the public portal on 19 October 2023 (Ex.A3)
- Received vague and evasive replies (Ex.A4)
- Finally warned Shine.com of approaching authorities such as ED, IT, CBI, and Cybercrime
Despite all his attempts, Shine.com neither refunded his money nor provided any meaningful service.
Left with no remedy, he filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Opposite Party Proceeded Ex-Parte
The Commission served notice to Shine.com, but the company neither appeared nor filed its written version. As a result, the case proceeded ex-parte.
This meant that all evidence submitted by the complainant stood uncontested and was accepted as true.
Evidence Filed by the Complainant
The complainant submitted:
- Ex.A1 – Email requesting refund
- Ex.A2 – Email exchanges with Shine.com
- Ex.A3 – Grievance portal complaint & response
- Ex.A4 – Email reply from Shine.com
- Ex.A5 – Four payment bills totaling Rs.34,558
These documents clearly established:
- Continuous payment demands
- Misleading representations
- Lack of service delivery
- Intent to financially exploit the complainant
Findings of the Commission
The Commission made several critical observations:
1. Misleading and Deceptive Conduct
Shine.com repeatedly changed the nature of services and amounts required for activation. Every time the complainant paid one amount, another demand followed. This proved:
- Lack of transparency
- Misrepresentation
- Inducement to pay without full disclosure
2. No Services Delivered
The emails revealed that Shine.com only made vague promises of “profile visibility” and “90-day featured listing,” with no actual job support or guaranteed services.
3. Collecting Money Without Reason is Unfair Trade Practice
The Commission held that Shine.com collected “hard-earned money” without providing any service. This is a textbook example of:
- Deficiency in service
- Unfair trade practice under Consumer Protection Act, 2019
4. Ex-Parte Non-Appearance Weakens Opposite Party’s Case
By failing to appear, Shine.com allowed the complainant’s evidence to stand unchallenged.
Final Order of the Commission
The Commission partly allowed the complaint and issued the following directions:
1. Refund
Shine.com must refund ?34,558 with 9% interest from 27 September 2023 until payment.
2. Compensation
?10,000 awarded for mental agony and harassment.
3. Litigation Costs
?5,000 to cover the cost of pursuing the complaint.
4. Remaining Claims Dismissed
Other claims beyond the above were dismissed.
Shine.com was given 45 days to comply.
Legal Principles Demonstrated in This Case
This case highlights several key legal principles valuable for both consumers and legal practitioners:
1. Misrepresentation is Deficiency in Service
When a job portal or service provider gives false guarantees, hides actual charges, or pressures consumers, it amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice.
2. Evidence of Communication is Crucial
Emails, payment receipts, and grievance records played a crucial role in proving the complainant’s claims.
3. Repeated Payment Demands Prove Unfair Trade Practice
Demanding money in installments with false assurances is legally punishable.
4. Ex-Parte Proceedings Strengthen the Consumer’s Position
Non-appearance by the opposite party generally leads to favorable orders for the complainant.
5. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Protects Job Seekers Too
Services like resume writing, job search support, and profile boosting fall under “service” as defined by the Act.
Why This Case Matters
This judgment is important because:
- Job portal scams are increasing, and consumers often feel helpless.
- Many job seekers are unaware that these disputes can be taken to consumer court.
- It establishes that job portals cannot collect money without providing real services.
- It empowers job seekers to challenge fraudulent or misleading paid job assistance schemes.
For law students and advocates, this case provides a clear illustration of how documentary evidence and consumer-friendly provisions can secure relief even in ex-parte scenarios.
Conclusion
The case of Attili Venkata Ravi Kishore vs. Shine.com is a powerful reminder that consumers must not tolerate deceptive job-related services or unjustified payment demands. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ensures that any service provider—whether a job portal, consultancy, or online platform—is accountable for transparency, fairness, and genuine service delivery.
By collecting evidence, questioning misleading demands, and approaching the Consumer Commission, job seekers can protect themselves from exploitation and secure rightful refunds and compensation.