Navigating Online Blackmail: Reporting and Legal Actions

Dear Client, Viewing pornography either child pornography or adult in digital devices on social media platforms is illegal and a crime punishable under law. Sec.67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was added through an amendment in 2008 that criminalizes the publishing, transmitting, or causing the transmission of sexually explicit content depicting children. The punishment for violating this section on the first conviction is imprisonment for up to five years and a fine of up to ten lakh rupees. On subsequent convictions, the punishment can extend up to seven years of imprisonment and a fine of up to ten lakh rupees. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending offensive messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or tablet and a conviction of it can fetch a maximum of three years of jail and a fine. Sharing private pictures, messages or videos especially of those under 18 either belonging to you or others with/without permission is a serious violation of privacy and is punishable by law. Once such a crime of violation of Sec.67B of I T Act, is reported to the Cyber Crime Cell, the matter is suo motto investigated by the authorities and you may be called on for interrogation to access the source of such offensive posts on social networks and to find out the veracity of the facts from the related intermediaries or service providers. On investigation, if they find you are in any way violating the provision of the Act, you can be booked for committing the crime, otherwise, you will be acquitted of the charges. If you have any specific incident that violated the law of the land, as a law-abiding citizen you may bring the matter to the notice of the Cyber Crime Cell because awareness and attitude of reporting amongst the citizens is the first step for preventing a crime and for booking the criminals behind the bar. If the situation so warrants, you may hire the service of an Advocate or cyber law expert to navigate the issue in the right way.

Dear Client, From the prolonged content of your query, it appears you are extremely aggrieved with the service of the service provider and decided to move the Court for relief. On detection of defects in the product, post-purchase is termed and defined under Sec.2(34) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as "Product Liability" which means the responsibility of a product manufacturer or product seller/service centre, to compensate for any harm caused to the consumer/customer by such defective product manufactured or sold or for a deficiency in services relating thereto. Chapter VI, Section 82 to Section 87 of the Consumer Protection Act deals with product liability and So, in the given scenario, serving a strong legal notice to both Service Provider and the product manufacturer, you can file a complaint against them over alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices before the District Consumer Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 claiming replacement of the vehicle or refund of the cost of the vehicle including the expenses incurred towards repairing/servicing along with compensation for harassment and cost of litigation. As per Section 69 of the CPA, the complaint should be filed within two years from the date of the cause of action. Since you have been facing a deficiency in service since 2017 up to now, your claim is now barred by limitation. So, you have to file a petition seeking condonation of delay on the grounds of continued cause of action along with your complaint petition and lead the evidence to justify your claim before the Commission. If required, hire the service of an experienced Advocate handling consumer cases to navigate the issue in the right way.

Dear Client They might have found some discrepancy in the report which they want to rectify may be hold oyu responsible for the same. You should pay a visit to figure that out and then take a decision after you have seen that whether to do anything or not. It will be mostly civil action unless there is fraud and misappropriation of funds.

Dear Client, From the contents of the query, it appears that you become a victim of misleading advertisement as defined under Section 2(28) and unfair trade practice as defined under Sec.2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. A service provider does not deserve the charges for the services, a consumer did not avail of. So, in the given situation, if the course opted for is provided online, then serving a legal notice to the EDTECH, a complaint against them over deficiency in service and unfair trade practices may be filed online mode through e-daakhil portal ( https://edaakhil.nic.in/edaakhil/ ) introduced by the Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of India following the provision of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 and the Consumer Protection(Direct Selling) Rules, 2021 claiming compensation for harassment. Complaint should be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. Further, if the service provider, EDTECH kept any franchisee/study center in your district, then you can file an offline complaint before the Dist. Consumer Commission under Sec. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to contest the case physically through an Advocate within two years from the date of cause of action.

Dear Client, The overlapping in service in respect of previous and present establishment and any anomaly or discrepancy in EPF records in respect of a fund of any registered member is a ground for future dispute. When your EPF record shows an anomaly in the joining and exit date in both the XXX & YYY Company which is contradictory, then until and unless those anomalies are rectified by the concerned employers, PF records will show dual employment. A joint declaration form is used to correct Provident Fund (PF) member details. It is a combined form that the employee and employer sign and submit to the regional PF commissioner to update the wrong information entered in the employees’ PF accounts. An EPF member should fill out the joint declaration form to correct details like father’s name, joining date, Exit date, etc., as these details will be verified against the Aadhaar. The EPF members or employees should physically submit the joint declaration form to the regional PF office with which the company or establishment is registered. An employee cannot update the service history. Only an employer can rectify the error in the employment record of the EPFO. So if an employee finds an error in the database, he should contact their present or previous employers and get it corrected. Further, Background verification(BGV) check is a process many organizations carry out to verify the information provided by the candidate during hiring. Verification of EPFO records through UAN is critical for conducting employee background checks because it allows employers to confirm that their employees are not using false or stolen identities to gain employment. In case of a negative background verification check an employer can even reject/terminate the employment of the candidate. In the given situation, to resolve the issue of overlapping in the P F records of both employers, you need to approach the office of the Regional P F Commissioner who is the competent authority to resolve any anomaly arising out of the date of appointment and date of discharge in EPF records. An individual can file a complaint using the EPF i-Grievance Management System (www. https://epfigms.gov.in/). Once you succeed in wiping out the stigma of dual employment from your EPF records with the cooperation of your previous and present employer, your scope of employment with other companies will be restored with clean employment records. In case of non-cooperation from both previous and current employers which amounted to unfair labour practice, you may bring the matter to the notice of the concerned Labour Commissioner or Asst. Labour Commissioner/LEO for a resolution in the matter.