The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Ext.A1 to A5 while OP produced only documents which were not marked. After that the learned counsels of both parties filed argument notes and the learned counsel of OP made oral submission also.
The allegation raised by the complainant are that 1) though he had paid Rs. 1506 to OP for the advertisement on Google Ads, OP has given GST bill only for 179.28/- 2) His ads are displaying with less words used by the OP that he had provided. 3) The said issue was solved by OP only after registered a cyber crime through website and at present OP discontinue the advertise of the complainants video.
With regard to the 1st allegation of the complainant about the payment of Rs.1,506/-, to OP, complainant has submitted Ext.A1,A2, A4 and A5. On perusal of those documents it is seen that complainant has remitted Rs.501 on 21/05/2021 to OP by debit card, Rs.502 on 04/07/2021 by debit card to OP and Rs.503/- on 24/07/2021. Total Rs.1506/-. Ext.A4, Ext.A2 shows that OP had given Google invoice of Rs.179.28/- to complainant. The explanation given by OP to the said allegation that the complainant has made manual payment towards Google Ads subscription. Accordingly , amounts, if any paid in excess of the monthly subscription fee would be credited into the complainant’s google ads account as ‘credit’. That in these circumstances, the amount retained in the credit would be used towards the google ads services for the subsequently billing period and separate invoices would be released upon appropriating the subscription amount for the corresponding subscription period. Thus the monies said to have been deposited by the complainant in June and July are automatically reflected as credit in his google ads account. That since the complainant has subscribed under ‘manual payment’ model, the OP issues invoice for the amount billed for providing the services during a particular billing period, and not the entire amount credited by received by the OP and an invoice will be issued in the future as and when the same is utilized for the services.
It is stated that an invoice will be issued in the future as and when the same is utilized for the services. But the OP here is failed to produce any invoice to show that the amount paid by complainant towards Google ads subscription was credited in the future for the services. Hence from the available material evidence it is evident that after receiving amount of Rs.1,506/- from the complainant towards advertisement subscription, OP had given bill for an amount of Rs.178.28 only. The another allegation of complainant is that even after received the subscription amount for advertisement, OP has published the heading of the videos as “about press copyright contact” and stated that after repeat request it was not corrected by OP and there after registered a complaint in cyber site against OP, the heading of the video was corrected. Copy of complaint is produced by the complainant (Ext.A3). Complainant submitted that filing the said complaint, OP had corrected the video but after correcting the video heading, it was not published in Google Ads.
OP totally denied the said allegation of the complainant. According to OP1 there is no discrepancy between the Head line and Description to the video as provided by the complainant and that of the Head line and description as displayed on the Ads.
The email from the OP to the complainant dated 15/09/2021 reveals that complainant had sent mail to OP about the discrepancy in the headline of the video. OP had replied that “the videos that complainant have created using the YouTube channel are not showing the correct Headlines and descriptions that you have used in the you tube channel”. Further “as per the screenshots you shared, I see that the result you are concerned about are organic google Search Results and not Ads. We, as an Ads support team, are not trained to help you out with issues regarding organic results since we are not trained on SEO. However, I recommend that you go through this link which might help with better insights. Here complainant submitted that the video-ads were later restored by OP.
With regard to discontinuation of the Video-Ads, the OP submitted that the complainant has not completed the mandatory identify verification process of the Google ads account and therefore, the account has been suspended. Further submitted that the complainant despite having been informed of the verification requirement has not carried out the same.
From the contention of OP, it is evident that OP has suspended the account of the complainant and the complainant’s ads are discontinued after receiving subscription amount from the complainant. Here OP further contended that Complainant can login into his google Ads account and complete the identify verification process and that on due completion of the indentify verification process, the complainant’s google ads account will be restored, subject to accounts’ compliance with other requirements. It is further submitted that, however, the complainant despite having been informed of the verification requirements has not carried out the same.
The complainant submitted that when the said search term or key word is typed in any internet user on google search and /or YouTube, as a search query, the advertisement of the advertiser will be displayed on the search results page depending on the terms of the subscription availed by the advertiser, along with the organic search results, in a visually distinct space. In fact this has not happened in the case of the complainant and that is the one of the grievance of the complainant and the OP has not stated any reason for this. This is a true deficiency of service on the part of the OP
Further complainant admitted the terms, conditions and policies for usage of the Google Ads are stipulated under the google ads Terms & conditions and google ads advertising policies, and the same are binding on the advertiser as a valid electronic contract are all correct and this complainant had followed all the terms and conditions of the google ads.
According to complainant, OP is trying to escape from their service deficiency by alleging misunderstanding of operations and functioning of the google Ads which is evidence from the email communication of OP dated 15/09/2021 i.e. OP agreed that OPs as an Ads support team, are not trained to help complainant with issues regarding organic result since they are not trained on SEO. Hence from the above facts, the allegation of complainant that OP never contacted the complainant to resolve the issues of complainant can be believed. OP could have sent emails to complainant though the complainant hand set was out of net work connectivity as contended by OP. Hence from the entire facts of this case, and from the exhibits produced by complainant there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP has evaded form tendering oral as well as documentary evidence. Mere contentions raised in the written version, will not substantiate, without adducing evidence.
With regard to the submission of complainant about the delay of 74 days in filing written version by OP, it is to be noted that Hon’ble Supreme court of India, in the case of Suo Motu writ petition © No.3 of 2020 has held that, “The order dated 23/03/2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08/03/2021, 27/04/2021 and 23/09/2021, it is directed that the period from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.” So in view of the foregoing, the written version of the OP was lodged within the limitation period.
With regard to next contention of OP about Sec.2(7)(ii) commercial purpose, our view is that the Service availed by the complainant does not have direct nexus with profit making. Hence the section 2(7)(ii) cannot be applied in the instant case. So complainant becomes a consumer of OP.
Hence from the facts and circumstances of this case, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP, by not giving proper guidance to complainant about restoring his advertisement, even after receiving the subscription amount and for discontinuing the advertisement by raising evasive points. Here complainant has not substantiated the quantum of monetary loss happened to him due to the deficiency in service of OP. Any way considering the mental agency and hardship and monetary loss we are of the view that complainant is entitled to get relief from OP and OP has to compensate the complainant.
In the result, complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to complainant towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost to the proceedings of this case. Opposite party shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount Rs.50,000/- carries interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1- Copy of bank statement
A2-Invoice bill
A3-Copy of the complaint before cyber cell
A4- Account statement of complainant - SBI
A5- bank pass book of complainant- SBI
Pw1- Complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
