State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Miss. Bhawana. vs Himachal Air Hostess Training ... on 7 September, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.37/2015
Date of Presentation: 20.04.2015
Date of Decision: 07.09.2015
.....................................................................................
Miss Bhawana, daughter of Shri Rajinder Kumar Sharma,
Resident of Hatkot Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P.
.......... Appellant .
Versus
(1) Himachal Air Hostess Training Institute,
Solan, H.P.,
Through its Managing Director,
Smt. Suman Godhara, wife of Shri Vijay Godhara,
Resident of House No.21, Sector-2,
Panchkula (Haryana).
(2) Vijay Godhar,
Mining Officer,
Village Khanak-Tasam,
Bhawani (Haryana).
(3) AHTI, 273,
Capt. Gaur Marg, New Delhi,
Through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
(Deleted vide order dated 19.08.2015).
.......... Respondents.
......................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President.
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2: Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3: Deleted.
..............................................................................................
1
Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Bhawana Versus Himachal Air Hostess Training Institute & Anr.
(F.A. No.37/2015)
__________________________________________________________
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2015, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, whereby, her complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which she filed against the respondents, has been dismissed, with the observation that there is nothing on record showing that she (the appellant) was misled by any misrepresentation on the part of respondents, while seeking admission in the Training Institute of respondent No.1 for Air Hostess Training.
2. Appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that by reading some advertisement got published by the respondents, she took admission for Air Hostess Training Course at respondent No.1, Institute, under the impression that the Institute was affiliated with IATA (International Air Transport Association). She raised loan from a bank and paid fees of `95,000/- to respondent No.1. Also, she stayed at Solan for a period of one year and spent Page 2 of 6 Bhawana Versus Himachal Air Hostess Training Institute & Anr.
(F.A. No.37/2015) __________________________________________________________ huge amount of money on rent and other expenses. She was assured that on completion of training, she will be placed with some reputed Airline as Air Hostess, within one year, but despite her having passed the examination conducted at the end of training period, she was not provided any job, though the prospectus issued by deleted respondent No.3, who had given a franchise to respondent No.1 had assured hundred percent placement of all the candidates, passing the examination. On these allegations, she prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to compensate her, by paying an amount of `10.00 lacs.
3. Complaint was contested by respondent No.1, who pleaded that it (the respondent No.1) was just a franchise of deleted respondent No.3, which had its Head Office at Delhi and that the training was imparted by respondent No.1 only as a franchise of deleted respondent No.3 and the entire fees collected from the appellant, had been remitted to deleted respondent No.3. Further, it was stated that assurance for hundred percent Page 3 of 6 Bhawana Versus Himachal Air Hostess Training Institute & Anr.
(F.A. No.37/2015) __________________________________________________________ placement was given not by respondent No.1, but by deleted respondent No.3 and, therefore, the liability, if any, for the alleged non-placement of the appellant was that of deleted respondent No.3 alone and not of respondent No.1.
4. AHTI, who was impleaded as opposite party No.3 in the complaint and was also impleaded as respondent No.3 in the present appeal, but later- on it was deleted from the array of respondents because of its non-service, did not appear before the learned District Forum, despite service and was, therefore, ordered to be proceeded against ex- parte.
5. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the complaint, holding that there was no misrepresentation by opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.3 that respondent No.3 was affiliated with International Air Transport Association.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. Prospectus, upon which the appellant has placed reliance, i.e. Annexure-A is issued by Page 4 of 6 Bhawana Versus Himachal Air Hostess Training Institute & Anr.
(F.A. No.37/2015) __________________________________________________________ deleted respondent No.3, AHTI and not by respondent No.1. It is in the prospectus that assurance of hundred percent placement finds mention. Respondent No.1 was only a franchise of deleted respondent No.3, as is made out from Annexure R-1. Therefore, the relief, if any, to which the appellant may be entitled could have been granted only against respondent No.3, whose name has been deleted from the array of respondents on the asking of the appellant. While ordering the deletion of name of respondent No.3 on the asking of the appellant, vide our order dated 19.08.2015, we made it clear that deletion of name of respondent No.3 was without prejudice to the objection, if any, which respondent No.1 might raise, because of non-impleadment of respondent No.3. Since, respondent No.3 is a necessary party and as a matter of fact, it was respondent No.3, who had issued prospectus assuring hundred percent placement; therefore, the remedy, if any, is available only against respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 being just a franchise of respondent No.3, we are of the considered view Page 5 of 6 Bhawana Versus Himachal Air Hostess Training Institute & Anr.
(F.A. No.37/2015) __________________________________________________________ that the appellant cannot get any relief, without respondent No.3 being a party to the litigation. Since, the name of respondent No.3 has been deleted on the asking of the appellant, appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of non-impleadment of necessary party, i.e. AHTI. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
8. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member September 07, 2015.
*dinesh* Page 6 of 6