DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.1394 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  13.08.2019                                                  Date of decision   :  23.09.2019

Ankur Suri, 2709-B, Sector 70, Mohali – 160071, Mobile No.9814099341.

…….Complainant

Versus

M/s. Freelancer Online India Private Limited, 40-P, Sector 40, Gurgaon 122002.

                                                      ……..Opposite Party   

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Complainant in person.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant, a veteran writer, having experience of a decade in writing articles and books, created online profile on Freelancer.com on 27.01.2017 with the hope that his services reaches to foreign clients. Freelancer is an online platform developed and operated by OP. Complainant abided by all the norms and conditions governing his relationship with OP and he never defaulted on any pretext. After crating profile, complainant was introduced by OP to an employer with the user name globalseo2 for writing articles for him. Said employer was shown as verified on Freelancer.com. OP assured complainant of payment on ground that all work done by him will be tracked in real time by Freelancer.com, due to which payment is granted. OP offers services of work tracking. Before starting work, worker has to install and run the tracking app on his computer so as to allow the employer to see what progress the hired worker  is making on the project. Complainant worked on the tasks given by globalseo2 from 30.01.2017 to 06.02.2017 for total 5.553 hours. On 06.02.2017 complainant raised an invoice amounting to $66.64 with due date as 13.02.2017, but said amount was not paid by OP even after expiry of due date. Despite sending of numerous emails to OP for recovery of money, nothing has been done and that is why this complaint for calling upon OP to release payment of $ 66.64 from their Indian Office. It is claimed that due to grave misconduct on part of OP, complainant entitled to compensation @$30 per hour for 100 hours etc.  In all total compensation of Rs.19,70,710/- is claimed.

2.             Arguments for admission purposes heard.  

3.             Perusal of complaint reveals as if complainant himself created online profile on Freelancer.com, but without commitment given by OP to make payment. However, as per case of complainant, he was introduced by OP to an employer with user name as globalseo2 for writing articles and if that be the position, then virtually complainant claims to have worked on the tasks given by globalseo2 for period from 30.01.2017 to 06.02.2017. If complainant worked on the tasks assigned by globalseo2, then virtually complainant rendered services to globalseo2 and not to OP. So liability for works undertaken by complainant for globalseo2 for payment remains of globalseo2 and not of present OP, more so when it is not the case of complainant that complainant passed on any consideration to OP.

4.             As per section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, consumer means a person who buys any goods for consideration or hires or avails any services for a consideration admittedly paid or promised to be paid etc. So for complainant being a consumer of OP, it had to be shown by complainant that he rendered services to OP for consideration, but no element of consideration alleged or pleaded in the complaint and as such certainly complainant is not consumer of OP. Rather the tasks undertaken by complainant for globalseo2 as per case of complainant himself and as such rendered services for consideration, if any by complainant were for globalseo2 and not for OP. That globalseo2 is not made a party at all and as such virtually relief through this complaint sought without impleading necessary party, whose liability for payment is alleged. Relationship of consumer and service provider do not exist between complainant and OP for want of consideration part and as such this consumer complaint is not maintainable, more so when there is no averment in the complaint that services of writing articles were to be rendered by complainant for earning livelihood by way of self employment.  Rather if the contents of complaint taken on its face value, then this means that OP was just to provide an online platform.

5.             In view of above discussion, complaint merits dismissal at the admission stage and same is hereby dismissed, but with the observation that the complainant will be at liberty to avail remedy from appropriate court/forum for redressal of his grievance. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

September 23, 2019.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member