State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramandeep Walia, Roll No.028 vs Rahul Garg, Director Centre Incharge Of ... on 13 May, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.1096 of 2004 Date of institution: 10.09.2004 Date of decision : 13.05.2010 1. Ramandeep Walia, Roll No.028; 2. Mahesh Kumar, Roll No.023; 3. Surinder Kumar, Roll No.008; 4. Jaspal Singh, Roll No.038; 5. Vivek Jindal, Roll No.005; 6. Simarjeet Kaur, Roll No.063; All the students of Tata Info Tech Education C/o N.M. College Mansa. ..Appellants Versus 1. Rahul Garg, Director Centre Incharge of Tata InfoTech Education, N.M.College, Mansa (Now c/o S.S.Computers, Sangrur). 2. Tata InfoTech Education through its Managing Director c/o Manish Commercial Complex, 216-A, Dr.Annie Basant Road, Worli Mumbai 400025. 3. Tata InfoTech Education c/o Tata InfoTech Ltd., 3rd Floor, Shri Partap Udyog, 274 Captain Guru Marg, Shri Niwaspuri, Delhi 110065. 4. Principal, N.M. College, Mansa. 5. S.S.Bedi, Director, Tata InfoTech Education, SCO No.315-316, 2nd Floor, 35-B, Chandigarh. ..Respondents First Appeal against the order dated 04.08.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa. Before:- Honble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.G.L.Bajaj, Advocate with Sh.S.K.Chhabra, Advocate For respondents No.1, 4 &5: Sh.Harinder Kumar, Advocate for Sh.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate For respondents No.2 & 3 : Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT This order will dispose of two appeals namely First Appeal No.1096 of 2004 (Ramandeep Walia and others v. Rahul Garg and others) and First Appeal No.1101 of 2004 (Varinder Kumar and others v. Rahul Garg and others) as the questions of law and facts involved in both these appeals are identical. The facts are taken from First Appeal No.1096 of 2004 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Rahul Garg respondent No.1 was the Director, Centre Incharge of Tata InfoTech Education, Mansa. The respondents had given lot of advertisement with colourful dreams which were by way of prospectus and Brochures/pamphlets. The appellants after receiving basic educational qualifications were in search of a diploma and career course which could enable them to earn livelihood. Allured by the advertisements published by the respondents, the appellants got the admission in Tata InfoTech Edcuatiion in N.M.College, Mansa. They also paid a huge amount for the course of E-commerce.
3. The appellants had deposited Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- with the respondents against receipts. However, the receipts for some of the deposits were not issued by the respondents.
4. It was further pleaded that after joining the course in the college of the respondents, the appellants were shocked to find out the realities which were different than shown in the advertisement. E-commerce which was started in February, 2001 for a period of one year was not completed in two years. However, respondent No.1 had forged the record showing the attendance of the students even in their absence. It proved to be a mockery of educational institution which played a cruel joke with the career of the students including of the appellants.
5. It was further pleaded that all the centres were given on contract like the shops/business centres to different institutions in Punjab. Idea was only to grab money from the innocent students without caring for the quality of education, library, faculties and without bothering about the harassment and inconvenience caused to the students.
6. It was further pleaded that the respondents had appointed inexperienced lecturers for computer education on low pay basis. These faculty members could not answer the questions put by the students. Since the lecturers were paid poorly, therefore, someone have left the college after a month or so and new were taken in. As a result, the quality of education was the victim. The Teacher parents meeting were not held in two years. When the students including the parents asked for the improvement in education to respondent No.1, he used to misbehave and threaten them with leaving the course in between.
7. It was further pleaded that the students made representations to the Principal and Nodal Officer about his misbehaviour and the harassment caused to the students but in vain.
8. It was further pleaded that out of 7 modules, JAVA, Internet and Oracle Courses were not completed. There was no facility of telephone for the purpose of internet as the telephone was disconnected by the department for want of payment of telephone bills. In starting, there were 30 seats in the college which were filled in by taking qualification test and fees but afterwards, the seats were extended to 60 without any test or test fee. The supply of electricity was not regular. PCs mouse was defective. Due to this harassment and sub-standard quality of education, most of the students had left the course. Only 20% of the students remained to complete the course.
9. It was further pleaded that the appellants had requested respondent No.1 to complete their course but he misbehaved with them and ordered the appellants to come to Sangrur for completing the course. The appellants visited the office of respondent No.1 at Sangrur 2-3 times but it was not possible for them to visit Sangrur every day. The education centre at Mansa was locked from December, 2002 without prior information or notice.
10. It was further pleaded that in total course, there were 7 modules i.e. 1. ABC of Windows, 2. Internet, 3. Web Development, 4. C++, 5. Java, 6.Oracle, 7. Visual Basic. Only the papers of ABC Windows, 2. Internet, 3.Web Development, 4. C++,
5. Java were held. Without holding examination of all the papers, the certificates of all the modules were given to the students alongwith the completion certificates in a shortcut manner like completing the formalities. There was great difference in the certificates qua writing, signs, grade, serial number. Even the fathers name of the students was not given. Most of the certificates did not bear the stamp of N.M.College, Mansa. Therefore, the certificate appeared as duplicate.
11. It was further pleaded that by ill-behaviour and poor education, the respondents played with the sentiments of the appellants. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellants filed a complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short the District Forum) for refund of the fee. They also prayed for compensation of Rs.2 alkhs each for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and loss of valuable period of their lives.
12. Respondent No.1 Rahul Garg filed the written reply. It was admitted that the appellants had taken the admission in Tata InfoTech Education in N.M. College, Mansa of the respondents but they had paid only nominal fee as per the terms and conditions of the respondents. No extra money was paid by the appellants to the respondents.
13. It was further pleaded that all the courses were completed, the details of which were specified in the prospectus. The actual and physical training was given to them. Even the appellants had given the receipts for the certificates which they had received from the respondents.
14. It was further pleaded that Tata InfoTech was still imparting proper information Technology education to its students. The students who were sharp got jobs in various fields. Some of the brilliant students also got job abroad. The students of E-commerce had taken proper education from their teachers and experts of the company who were called from time to time. Only the experienced lecturers were appointed who were expert in their respective subjects/languages. It was denied if the lecturers were changed from time to time or the facilities/necessary components were not available in the college. Rather all the facilities were there in the premises for the students as per their requirements.
15. It was denied if the students were called at Sangrur or if any of the students had visited Sangrur. Proper classes were conducted and, thereafter, proper certificates for their respective qualifications were issued to them. The education was to be given to the appellants as per the agreement of Tata InfoTech and Government of Punjab. There was no provision for issuance of the certificates by the College authorities nor those certificates were to be stamped or sealed by the respondents. The role of the respondent (N.M.College) college was only to provide premises for this purpose. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
16. Respondents No.2 and 3 also filed the written statement. It was denied if the appellants were the students of respondents No.2 and 3 or if they had any cause of action against respondents No.2 and 3. Respondents No.2 and 3 had no knowledge or record about the enrolment of the appellants or about the payment of any fee by them. It was denied if the appellants had paid any fee to respondents No.2 and 3.
17. It was further pleaded that it had come to the knowledge of respondents No.2 and 3 from respondents No.1, 4 and 5 that the education services were conducted at N.M.College where the courses of respondents No.2 and 3were conducted properly and in a most professional manner. A number of students had taken admission prior to the admission of the appellants alongwith them and after that and even subsequently. The appellants had completed their course and they were awarded certificates for successful course completion.
18. It was further pleaded that as per the knowledge of respondents No.2 and 3, the allegations made by the appellants were false. The appellants had successfully completed their courses, modular examinations were conducted and they were eligible to appear for final examination but they did not appear for the same on the pretext that they had not understood some modules. Therefore, seeking of the refund of fee was unsustainable. As a goodwill gesture, respondents No.1 and 5 had agreed to conduct refresher courses for such students. It was also denied if the attendance record was forged. It was denied if respondents No.2 and 3 have committed any deficiency in service. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
19. Respondent No.4 also filed the written reply. It was pleaded that as per the agreement between Government of Punjab and Tata InfoTech Education, respondent No.4 was to deduct 20% of the fee and pay 80% to Tata InfoTech Education. Out of this 20%, of the amount was to be credited to the amalgamated fund of the College and the remaining was to be deposited in the Treasury for Punjab Government. In turn, respondent No.4 was to provide free accommodation. Accordingly, respondent No.4 had provided rent free accommodation. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.4.
20. Respondent No.5 also filed the written reply. He also denied if he committed any deficiency in service. It was denied if there was any office of Tata InfoTech in SCO No.315-316, 2nd Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. Only a Centre was being run at the said premises under affiliation from Tata Infotech Limited. No person of the designation of Director, Tata InfoTech was working there. Respondent No.5 has been wrongly shown as Director, Tata InfoTech Education. There is no contract between the appellants and respondent No.5. No fee has been paid to respondent No.5 nor the services of respondent No.5 have been hired. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
21. Ramandeep Walia appellant filed her raffidavit Ex.C1. The appellants also proved documents Ex.C2A to Ex.C2C, Ex.C3 to Ex.C62. The appellants also filed the affidavitof Deepika Singla as Ex.C63. On the other hand, the respondents proved documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP21. Rahul Garg respondent No.1 filed his affidavit Ex.OP22. Mahesh Chadha also filed affidavit on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 as Ex.OPA.
22. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 4.8.2004 by giving liberty to the appellants to seek remedy before the Civil Court or any other authority or the Tribunal if so advised.
23. Hence, this appeal.
24. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 4.8.2004 be set aside and the appellants be awarded adequate compensation.
25. The submission of the learned counsel for respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
26. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
27. Ramandeep Walia appellant had taken admission for Tata InfoTech Education in N.M.College, Mansa on 12.2.2001 Ex.C20. She had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- for which the receipt was issued by the authorised signatory/Nodal Officer, N.M. College, Mansa. If the quality of education was poor or if the proper laboratory or if the equipment was not available for the course, then the appellants could have raised objection and filed the complaint for refund of the fee alongwith compensation but it is proved that even on 28.4.2002, Ramandeep Walia had made the payment of Rs.7500/- (Ex.C21) and again Rs.7500/- on 11.9.2002 (Ex.C22). She got the certificate dated 30.4.2002 Ex.C23, Ex.C24 and Ex.C25. The complaint was filed by her alongwith other appellants on 5.3.2003.
28. If the allegations now made by the appellant in the complaint had been true then she would not have deposited the fee even after the expiry of 14 months from the first deposit on 12.2.2001 and after 18 months from 12.2.2001. It appears now that the story contained in the complaint was not believeable.
29. Similarly, Surinder Kumar has got certificates Ex.C26, Ex.C27, Ex.C28, Ex.C29 and Ex.C30. He also got certificate from the Authorised Training Centre dated 2.1.2003 Ex.C31 that he has completed the course in E-commerce at Government N.M.College, Mansa from February, 2001 to October, 2002.
30. Like Ramandeep Walia appellant, Surinder Kumar appellant had also deposited fee of Rs.10,000/- with the respondents on 5.2.2001 Ex.C32. He again deposited a sum of Rs.7500/- Ex.C33. If Surinder Kumar was not satisfied with the qualify of education which he was getting in N.M.College, Mansa or if the infrastructure conditions were also poor then he would not have deposited the fee after about a year.
31. So is the case of other appellants. It appears that after completing the course, the appellants thought of filing the complaint and they disputed the quality of education they received from the respondents.
32. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
First Appeal No.1101 of 200433. In view of the reasons recorded in First Appeal No.1096 of 2004, this appeal is also dismissed.
34. The arguments in both these appeals were heard on 6.5.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
35. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER May 13, 2010.
Paritosh