Latest News and ArticleView ALL

In a significant ruling, the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has clarified that WhatsApp, by offering its services in India, qualifies as a service provider, and therefore, a consumer complaint against it is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

The order was passed by a bench consisting of Mr. Sushil Kumar (Presiding Member) and Mrs. Sudha Upadhyay (Member), who firmly stated that the foreign status of WhatsApp does not exempt it from being held accountable under Indian consumer laws.

“In reality, WhatsApp's function is to facilitate the exchange of personal information between two individuals. By utilizing this function, WhatsApp attracts its customers, and therefore, its fundamental objective is to attract customers and provide them with services. Thus, WhatsApp is a service provider company. This company also provides services in India, so it cannot be said that it is a foreign company, and a consumer complaint against it is not maintainable.”

Read Also:- Supreme Court Directs No WhatsApp or E-Service for Section 41A CrPC/BNSS Notices

The Commission rejected the findings of the District Consumer Commission, which had earlier ruled that WhatsApp users are not consumers of the platform and thus, a complaint against it cannot be entertained.

“Therefore, the conclusion of the District Consumer Commission that a person using WhatsApp is not a consumer of WhatsApp and that a consumer complaint against WhatsApp is not maintainable is legally incorrect. Hence, the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is liable to be set aside.”

This ruling came while hearing two appeals filed by former IPS officer and current Azad Adhikar Sena National President, Amitabh Thakur. He had challenged the order of the District Consumer Commission, Lucknow, which had dismissed his complaint against WhatsApp.

Read Also:- Kerala High Court Rules Against Lawyers Recording Court Proceedings, Contemplates Contempt Action

Thakur had approached the consumer forum alleging that his WhatsApp service was interrupted for six hours, which violated the platform’s terms of service. In his complaint, he mentioned that the outage disrupted his work, and he sought compensation for the inconvenience caused.

However, the District Forum had rejected his plea, reasoning that WhatsApp is an international entity, and Thakur had not paid any direct charges for the service. Therefore, the forum concluded that he could not be considered a consumer.

Challenging this decision, Thakur filed appeals, arguing that WhatsApp provides essential digital communication services and its users are indeed consumers under Indian law.

The State Commission agreed with Thakur’s arguments and overturned the lower commission's decision. It observed that WhatsApp operates in India, offers services to Indian users, and should therefore be accountable under Indian consumer protection laws.

Importantly, the Commission has now directed the District Consumer Commission to register Thakur’s complaint as a consumer complaint and to conclude the matter regarding compensation within 90 days, in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has clarified an important employment law principle: the doctrine of "no work no pay" does not apply when an employee is kept away from work due to the employer’s actions or omissions. A Division Bench, consisting of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani, made this observation while dismissing an appeal by the J&K Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation (J&K HPMC).

Read Also:-Contractors Must Pay GST Based on Tender Submission Date, Not Work Allocation Date: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The case stemmed from the government's introduction of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) for employees of state undertakings, including J&K HPMC. As per Clause 5(iv) of the scheme, benefits were to be paid within 60 days of the acceptance of voluntary retirement, after clearing employee dues. Employees responded to the scheme, and J&K HPMC accepted their VRS offers effective from April 10, 2013, although formal orders were issued only on May 17, 2013.

Despite accepting the VRS, the corporation failed to pay the promised dues on time. This forced the employees to file a writ petition seeking their payments. During the litigation, the employees were reinstated by an order from the Writ Court. They then amended their petition to demand salaries for the period they were kept out of service.

Read Also:-Justice Arun Palli Sworn In As Chief Justice Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court

The Division Bench noted that the employees’ forced absence was solely due to the corporation’s failure to fulfill its obligations. The court firmly rejected the corporation's argument that "no work no pay" applied.

In its judgment, the Court stated:

"The principle of 'no work no pay' can be put into operation when the employee remains out of service because of his own act/omission/fault. But when an employee is kept away from the work by any act or omission on the part of the employer, the employee cannot be denied salary on the principle of 'no work no pay.'"

The Court emphasized that the employees were willing to work, and it was the corporation's delay and negligence that kept them away from their duties. Moreover, the Court drew support from several Supreme Court rulings, including Commr., Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689, where the Apex Court clearly held that "no work no pay" does not apply if an employee is prevented from working due to no fault of his own.

Read Also:-Criminal Court Alone Can Give 'No Objection' for Passport If Case is Pending: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Additionally, the court referenced the cases J.N. Srivastava vs. Union of India and Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, where similar principles were upheld.

Summing up the case, the High Court concluded:

"The learned Writ Court has arrived at the conclusion that the respondents were kept away from work by the authorities after accepting their offer of voluntary retirement, and as such, they are entitled to salary for the intervening period. There is no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court."

Finding no merit in the appeal, the Division Bench upheld the Writ Court's judgment and dismissed the corporation's appeal. The court also noted that there would be no order as to costs.

This decision reaffirms that employers must bear responsibility for their actions and cannot deny wages by invoking "no work no pay" when employees are kept out of work due to employer’s lapses.

Case Title: J&K HORTICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING AND PROCESSING CORPORATION Vs ABDUL RAZAK MALLA & OTHERS