State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amit Jain vs Sh. Samit Batra, Director , Paradigm ... on 6 August, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of decision: 06.08.2007 Appeal No.291/2003 (Arising from the order dated 07.01.2003 passed by District Forum(Central) Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No.1768/2001) 1. Sh. Amit Jain .. Appellant. R/o 3503, Kucha Lalman, Opp. PS Darya Ganj, New Delhi. 2. Sh. Sandeep Manaktala, House No.3/1941/8-B, New Basti, Beri Bagh, Saharanpur. 3. Ms. Savita Arora, C-15, Gali No.6, New Seelampur, Brahmapuri, Shahdara, Delhi. 4. Sh. S.S. Chauhan, Principals Residence, Queen Marys School, Tees Hazari, Delhi. Versus 1. Sh. Samit Batra .. Respondent. Director , Paradigm Infoways Pvt. Ltd., 23-B, Pusa Road, 3rd Floor, New Delhi 2. Ms. Bhuvan Nanda, Director, Paradigm Infoways Pvt. Ltd., A-1, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. 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, President(ORAL)
1. Vide impugned order dated 07.01.2003, the complaint of the appellants seeking refund of the tuition fees paid by him as well as compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the respondent for not providing first class library facility, highly qualified faculty, placement facility and over stretching the duration of the course for another two months, was dismissed.
2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. We have perused the impugned order and find that pursuant to an advertisement in the various newspapers published by the respondent that they were giving the best computer education at half of the market rate being US based company, the appellant joined the course on 09.04.2001 which was of six months duration. It was alleged by the appellant that everything started going wrong from the very beginning for various reasons as against the promise made the appellant had access to the internet for not more than 15 days during the last six months, half the terminals were not working at any given point of time, the faculty was not up to the mark, they had not received any written confirmation from head office of the respondent regarding placement commitment, library facility were deficient and instead of P-III processors, the computers had only Celeron.
4. However, the aforesaid allegations were rebutted by the respondent by averring that the appellants were intimated to rejoin and complete the course but they did not do so except one Sh. Sanjiv Sharma, who had completed the course successfully. The respondent further averred that the subjects introduced by them in the course were new and as such some of the students did not comprehend these and as such the duration of the course was over stretched. As regards the promise of placement, the respondent averred that it was only given to those who secured A+ and A grades.
5. Be that as it may, the fact that duration of the course was over stretched and the allegations of faculty being not upto the mark there being no library facility, there being no excess to the internet for more than 15 days during the duration of the course i.e. six months or so and the false representation as to the US affiliation etc. were not controverted effectively. So far as the duration of the course being over stretched by six months shows that institute suffered from aforesaid deficiencies as deficiency in service defined by Section 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertake to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
6. However, since the appellants had taken the coaching for sufficiently long period against consideration, we deem that lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- to each of the appellants shall meet the ends of justice.
7. The appeal is disposed of to the aforesaid extent. The payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
8. F.D.R./ Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced today on 06th day of August 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri