District Consumer Commission Orders HT Media To Refund, Compensate Consumer For Inaccessible Platform

District Consumer Commission Orders HT Media To Refund, Compensate Consumer For Inaccessible Platform

A recent verdict by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban (Maharashtra), has highlighted the importance of companies delivering promised services, particularly in the online employment sector. The case involved a consumer complaint filed against Hindustan Times Media Ltd. (HT Media) by a woman who faced issues accessing an employment platform despite making the required payment.

The complainant, who remained anonymous in the order, registered as a service provider on Firefly, an online platform operated by HT Media for commission-based labour supply and employment services. The disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic during 2020-21 significantly impacted the functionality of the portal.

However, on June 24, 2021, with the hope of reviving her professional prospects, the complainant made a payment of ₹55,475 to HT Media through the portal's payment link. Two days later, she confirmed her agreement with the terms and conditions received via email and even attended a training session conducted by HT Media through a Zoom meeting.

The promised access to employment opportunities, however, never materialised. Two days after the training, the complainant observed a troubling lack of organised work available on the platform. Despite reaching out to HT Media via email on numerous occasions, her concerns about the portal's functionality remained unaddressed. These technical errors prevented her from conducting any business for an entire year, leading to substantial financial losses.

Feeling frustrated and wronged, the complainant decided to seek justice. She approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, and filed a consumer complaint against HT Media. Notably, HT Media chose not to appear before the Commission for the proceedings.

The District Commission, led by President Samindara S. Surve and Members Sanjay S. Jagdale and Sameer Kamble, carefully examined the evidence presented by the complainant. They noted with concern that despite completing the online training and expressing her willingness to work, the complainant's access to the platform was abruptly deactivated just two days after the training session. This not only caused significant financial strain but also inflicted mental distress.

The Commission held HT Media's lackadaisical response and its failure to address the technical issues on the platform as the primary reasons for the complainant's suffering. It concluded that the malfunctioning portal had prevented the complainant from earning an estimated annual income of ₹10,00,000. Consequently, the District Commission held HT Media liable for deficiency in services.

To compensate for the financial losses and mental distress caused, the Commission directed HT Media to pay a total of ₹2 lakh to the complainant. This included ₹1 lakh for economic losses and another ₹1 lakh for mental suffering. Additionally, HT Media was ordered to refund the initial payment of ₹55,475 along with 9 per cent interest from the date of the order. Finally, the Commission also directed HT Media to bear the complainant's litigation costs of ₹10,000.