Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Ibm Global Services India Limited vs Vijay Kumar Gupta on 3 July, 2008

  
 
 
 
 
 
 IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI
  
 
 
 
 







 



 

 IN THE STATE COMMISSION:   DELHI  

 

(Constituted under
Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) 

 

Date of Decision:  03-07-2008 

 

 Appeal No.A-324/2005 

 

(Arising out of Order dated  24-06-2004 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II,
Qutub Institutional Area, Behind Qutub Hotel,   New Delhi, in Complaint Case No.449/2003) 

 

  

 

  

 

IBM Global Services India Limited, 

 

Through Its Managing Director, 

 

Golden Enclave,   Airport Road, 

 

  Bangalore 560017.  . . . Appellant 

 

  

 

Versus 

 

1. Mr.
Vijay Kumar Gupta, 

 

 RZ/9/61,
Street No.12, 

 

 Tughlakabad
Extension, 

 

   New
  Delhi 110019. 

 

  

 

2. Cellulinks
Computech Pvt. Ltd. 

 

 F-22,
Geetanjali Enclave, 

 

   New
  Delhi 110017.  . . . Respondents 

 

   

 

 CORAM: 

 

Justice
J.D. Kapoor, President 

 

Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member 
 

1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

 

Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral)  

1. Impugned order dated 24-06-2004 passed by the District Forum; vide which the appellant has been directed to refund the amount of Rs. 57, 600/- received by it towards fees for Software Engineering Course, along with Rs. 2,000/- as damages and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation, is an ex-parte Order.

 

2. Allegations of the respondent before the District Forum in brief were that pursuant to the advertisement of the appellant, the respondent applied for admission in IBM Advance Certificate in Software Engineering, through respondent No.2. However, during the course, it was found that there was no IBM trained and certified faculty to teach the course syllabus. The computers were generally not in working condition and one PC for one student was also not available as claimed by the appellant. Appellant No.2-the centre did not complete the syllabus and projects which were necessary and without conducting any examination and project issued a certificate and mark sheet with A-Grade. On the above allegations the appellant claimed refund of the fees of Rs. 57,6000/- paid to the appellant along with Rs. 50,000/- as expenses and Rs. 1.5 Lakh for mental harassment and Rs. 1.5 Lakh as expenses incurred by him in doing two Diploma Courses.

 

3. Placing reliance upon the affidavit and documents as to the admission taken by the respondent and the amount of fees received by the appellant, the District Forum observed that the appellant was deficient in service as during the course there was no certified faculty and the PCs were not in working condition and as claimed one PC for one student norm was missing and the course was not completed and the projects were also not done and without conducting any examination the appellant issued certificates.

 

4. Since the aforesaid allegations are of such type which need to be controverted by the appellant by way of giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard, the appeal is allowed at the outset subject to cost of Rs. 2,500/-. Impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the District Forum for deciding it afresh on merits positively within three months even if it has to be taken up on day to day basis.

 

5. The parties shall appear before the District Forum for the above purpose on 11-08-2008.

6. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

7. A copy of order as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties and the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record. FDR/Bank Guarantee if any be released under proper receipt.

     

(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President         (Rumnita Mittal) Member                                                               HK