State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms. Neelam Modi vs M/S.G.M. Infotech & Systems (P) Ltd. on 27 November, 2008
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Present: Hon'ble
Thiru Justice N. KANNADASAN, PRESIDENT
THIRU Pon. GUNASEKARAN
B.A.,B.L., MEMBER - I
F.A. NO.374/2005
{Against O.P.No.3/2005 on the file of the DCDRF,Chennai
(South) }
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008
Ms. Neelam Modi, | Appellant/Complainant
D/o. A.K. Modi, | rep. by Senior Counsel
Flat No.6, Srivastava
Apartments, | M/s.V. Prakash
No.25, K.B. Dasan Road, |
Alwarpet, |
Chennai 600 018.
Vs.
M/s.G.M. Infotech &
Systems (P) Ltd., | Respondent/Opposite Party
Rep. by its Director K.
Buhary, | rep. by Advocate
No.192, 3rd
Floor, Anna Salai, | Mr.M.Venkatachapathy
Saidapet, |
Chennai 600 015. |
ORDER
N. KANNADASAN J.
1. The appellant herein is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party before the District Forum.
2. The complaint is filed before the District Forum under the following circumstances:-
The opposite party issued advertisement and pamphlet with regard to Seminar on Animations offered by them which would enhance the skill and to widen the scope of job opportunity. The course fee is Rs.2 lakhs and duration of the course is 9 months. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh. As per the advertisement, it is clearly indicated that the course would be taught by German Trainers. However, in the beginning only for a period of 20 days one Mr.Frank Govaere taught the invitees for one and a half hour each day and subsequently no German experts were there. Since the complainant was employed as Associate Creative Director in an Advertisement Company, she has suffered loss of time due to the poor teaching given by opposite party. She discontinued the course and issued Lawyer notice for refund of the amount, but the opposite party refused to refund the same. Hence the complaint is filed seeking refund of Rs.1 lakh with compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest.
3. The opposite party resisted the complaint that as per the advertisement, the opposite party is bound to arrange only for meeting with German Experts and the assertion of the complainant that course would be conducted by German Experts is nothing but wild imagination and complainant voluntarily discontinued the course and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint by holding that complainant had already attended three seminars and she had opted out of the course on her own accord and she had paid only part amount of Rs.1 lakh. As against the said order, the present appeal is filed.
5. The Learned Senior Counsel Mr.V. Prakash contended that a perusal of Ex.A1 which is advertisement in The Hindu and the pamphlet issued by opposite party in Ex.A4 makes it clear that the complainant was made to believe that the course would be conducted only by German Experts. He has also drawn our attention to the specific stand taken by the opposite party in their reply dated 17.09.2001 in Ex.A6 wherein the opposite party has admitted that there was no advertisement to suggest that the course would be conducted only by German Experts.
6. Per contra, the Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent submits that the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint and since the opposite party never mislead in their advertisement and pamphlets, deficiency cannot be alleged as against them. It is further contended that the complainant has not chosen to pay the entire course fee of Rs.2 lakhs and in fact she has chosen to attend various class as evident in Ex.B1-Attendance Register and accordingly submitted that the order of the District Forum does not call for interference.
7. We have heard the Learned Counsel for respective parties and perused the materials available on record.
8. A perusal of the advertisement issued by the opposite party, relevant portion of the advertisement proceeds as follows:-
Become a high-paid Animation Professional JOB ASSURANCE/BANK FINANCE/ German Trainers/Live Projects A perusal of the above advertisement published in The Hindu in Ex.A1 clearly discloses that course would be conducted by German Trainers even though in the very seen advertisement there is yet another wording as MEET OUR GERMAN EXPERTS.
The advertisement specifically proceeds as if the trainers are non-else than German Trainers. Similarly in the pamphlet in Ex.A4, second column under the heading Why G.M. Infotech in Serial No.6 it is indicated as German Trainers. Nowhere in other serial numbers there is any indication that the course would be offered by other trained professional from India or from other Institutes. In the light of the above facts, we are unable to agree the stand taken by the complainant that the advertisement would not misled the invitees. The complainant who was employed as Associate Creative Director in Advertisement Company appears to have joined the course only with a view to get proper training from German Trainers. It is only under the said circumstances, as contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant that she was constrained to leave the course by not attending entire duration of 9 months. A perusal of the decisions rendered in (1) West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Calcutta reported in I (2003) CPJ 297 Sakila Begum Vs. NITT Ltd.,, (2). Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, reported in II (2006) CPJ 309 rendered in Doaba College, Jalandhar Vs. Jitan Bhatia, (3). Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, reported in II (2006) CPJ 192 rendered in Amit Kumar Juneja Vs. NIIT Ltd., & Ors and (4). Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, reported in II (2006) CPJ 288 rendered in Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs. Vivek Sinha discloses that in similar circumstances, the Honble National Commission as well as other State Commissions have held that the action of such Educational Institution amounts to deficiency in service.
9. In the light of the facts narrated above, as well as the principles laid down in the above decisions, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and accordingly the complainant is entitled to the relief. It is not dispute that the complainant has paid only a sum of Rs.1 lakh and out of 9 months course, she has attended the course for three months. In our opinion, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the course fee after deducting the course fee in proportionate to the duration for which she has attended. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh out of Rs.2 lakhs and the duration of the course is 9 months. Hence for each month course, the opposite party is charging the fee approximately at the rate of about Rs.22,000/- if the above amount is rounded off. The opposite party is entitled to refund only Rs.34,000/- after retaining Rs.66,000/- by way of course fee to the complainant for three months.
10. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside with the following directions:
(a) The opposite party shall repay a sum of Rs.34,000/-
representing the balance course fee and a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service by way of compensation to the complainant and a sum of Rs.3,000/- by way of cost.
(b) The above payment shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.
PON GUNASEKARAN N. KANNADASAN MEMBER-I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO.
ns/nkj/education