State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nikita Sharma vs M/S Iiht on 16 January, 2013
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.251 of 2008.
Date of Institution: 25.03.2008.
Date of Decision: 16.01.2013.
Nikita Sharma, daughter of Sh. Chaman Lal Sharma, Resident of House
No.2805, Katra Dulo, Amritsar.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. M/s IIHT (Indian Institute of Hardware Technology), SCO No.5, IInd
Floor, Nehru Shopping Complex-I, Lawrence Road, Amritsar, through
its Centre Director.
2. Sh. K.D. Pasricha (inadvertently impleaded as "Sh. D.K. Pasricah" in
the complaint), Director, M/s Indian Institute of Hardware Technology,
(IIHT), SCO No.5, IInd Floor, Nehru Shopping Complex-I, Lawrence
Road, Amritsar.
3. Mrs. Meenu Pasricha wife of Sh. K.K. Pasricha, Director, M/s Indian
Institute of Hardware Technology, (IIHT), SCO No.5, IInd Floor, Nehru
Shopping Complex-I, Lawrence Road, Amritsar.
...Respondents.
4. M/s Indian Institute of Hardware Technology, (IIHT), through its
Director/Principal Officer/Partner/Regional Officer, Regional Office-
A/2A, Green Park, New Delhi.
...Proforma Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
11.01.2008 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate, proxy for Sh. Anil Chawla, Advocate, counsel for the respondents.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Ms Nikita Sharma, appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 11.01.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "the District Forum"). First Appeal No.251 of 2008 2
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondents, pleading that she completed BCA study course from Shri Guru Teg Bahahdur College, Amritsar, affiliated to Guru Nanak Dev University. For further studies of I.N.E.T. course, she went to the office of respondents no.1 to 3 at Amritsar, as they had displayed on their sineboards "I.I.H.T.", which is a repudiated company for IT/ACHNP/INET etc. courses and job placement. Respondents no.2 and 3 met the appellant and stated that they are affiliated to main IIHT and they will charge Rs.7,000/- for INET course of six months, Rs.4500/- for registration of job and IIHT registration Rs.2500/-. They assured the appellant that they have qualified faculty members and infrastructure and gave 100% job guarantee. The appellant deposited Rs.4500/- on 03.06.2005 in cash and registration no.7588 was given.
3. The appellant started the classless and the respondents run the classes only for one and a half months and thereafter, no regular classes were run. Respondents no.1 to 3 further received Rs.3500/- on 08.07.2005 and another Rs.3500/- on 11.08.2005 and issued the receipts.
4. The appellant during the period of studies came across one news advertisement of IIHT i.e. respondent no.4 in which they gave the list of their branches in Punjab, but there was no branch at Amritsar. It was clear that respondent no.1 to 3 were misusing the reputed name of IIHT. The appellant pointed out these facts to respondents no.2 and 3 and they started misbehaving and gave threats. The appellant felt distressed and felt that her future is in dark and she has lost money and valuable year of her life.
5. The appellant after some days went to Nehru Complex where the office of respondent no.1 is situated and was surprised to see that respondents no.2 & 3 had changed their name IHIT affiliated to JASanz, having head office in Melbourne, Australia. Respondents no.1 & 2 misled and took Rs.11,500/- and spoiled her future. Respondents no.1 & 2 have adopted First Appeal No.251 of 2008 3 unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on their part, which has caused financial loss, mental tension and harassment.
6. It was prayed that the respondents no.1 to 3 may be directed to refund Rs.11,500/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of payment till realization and to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation.
7. In the written reply filed on behalf of respondents no.2 & 3, it was stated that the appellant has filed the false and frivolous complaint, with ulterior motive and the same is bad in law. It was further submitted in the preliminary objections that the appellant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true facts and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The real facts are that on 03.06.2005, the appellant approached respondent no.2 and desired to take admission in Networking Computer for six months and Computer Assembling for one month and signed the admission form as well as the rules and regulations. The appellant started her course in the month of June, 2005 and she successfully completed the course of Computer Assembling from the Faculty of Col. Narinder Singh and simultaneously, attended another course of Window Networking from the faculty of Sh. Jatinder Kumar. In the month of September, 2005, the concerned faculty informed the management about the absence of the appellant without any intimation. When inquired, then the parents of the appellant informed that she has joined MCA and will not continue the course. The student was declared as 'dropout' in the progress report of September, 2005 and the remaining fee was also not paid. The appellant received various books of Computer Fundamental on 03.06.2005 and other books from time to time and on 26.08.2005 last time, she received the books of Linux-Red Hat and the student Courseware Form. After two years of silence, the present complaint has been filed. As per the rules and regulations, once the admission is taken, no refund will be given to the student, whatever the cause may be.
First Appeal No.251 of 2008 4
8. The answering respondent no.2 is the authorized franchisee of IIHT, B-78, Sindhuja Building, Sector-VI, Noida and a certificate has been issued to that effect. Correct name of respondent no.2 is K.D. Pasricha and not D.K. Pasricha. Respondent no.3 is the wife of respondent no.2 and has no concern with the present controversy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering respondents and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs. The appellant is not a consumer.
9. On merits, it was admitted that the IIHT is a reputed company for Computer Hardware and Networking. The appellant approached the answering respondents for the Six Months' Course in Networking Computer and One Month Course of Computer Assembling and appropriate fee was paid as per the fee plan of IIHT. The appellant has not paid the fee for Computer Assembly Course, as she dropped from the course. The appellant started the course in the month of June, 2005 and absented in the month of September, 2005 without any intimation. Other similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
10. Respondents no.1 and 4 did not contest the complaint before the District Forum and were proceeded against exparte.
11. Contesting parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
12. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the appellant has herself left the coaching classes as she had joined some MCA course. This fact was revealed to the authorities of respondents no.1 to 3 by the parents of the appellant, when they were contacted on telephone regarding the appellant being absent from her classes for a long period after 15th September, 2005. The parents of the appellant told that she joined the MCA course and she is not going to attend First Appeal No.251 of 2008 5 the coaching classes of the respondents and thereafter, the appellant was treated as a 'dropout' case, and dismissed the complaint.
13. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.01.2008, the appellant has come up in appeal.
14. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the written arguments filed on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant took admission for undergoing the above courses on the grounds that IIHT which is a reputed company is conducting the courses and respondents no.1 to 3 are affiliated with the said IIHT. The receipts Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 prove that the same were issued, alleging Regional Office, Amritsar of IIHT. Ex.C-3 is the advertisement of said IIHT and on reading the same, the appellant came to know that the respondents no.1 to 3 are not, at all, affiliated to said IIHT, nor IIHT has any centre at Amritsar. On seeing this advertisement, the appellant pointed out to the respondents, but the respondent got annoyed and they changed the affiliations to Noida. It has been further contended that the licence granted to Sh. K.D. Pasricha by IIHT was upto 14.06.2005 and thereafter, it was not extended and after 14.06.2005, respondents no. 1 to 3 had no authority to continue with the courses provided by IIHT and the appellant was allured by false advertisements and she paid the amount through receipts Ex.C-1 of Rs.4500/- and Ex.C-4 of Rs.3500/- and also suffered mental tension and harassment and has to take admission, by spending further in MCA, as the courses started by respondents no.1 to 3 were not recognized, nor were affiliated with IIHT. It has been contended that the District Forum has not taken notice all these facts and the order passed by the District Forum is illegal and the appeal may be allowed.
First Appeal No.251 of 2008 6
16. In the written arguments filed on behalf of respondents no.2 & 3, in addition to the pleadings, it was further submitted that the answering respondents are authorized franchisee of IIHT in Amritsar and the licence Ex.R-13 was issued and the agreement entered by the answering respondent with the IIHT is Ex.R-14. The appellant started attending the course in the month of June, 2005 and left the same in the month of September, 2005 without any intimation and when the inquiry was made from the parents, it was told that she has joined the MCA course and she was declared as 'dropout' in the progress report. The remaining fee was not paid by her. She was supplied the books and the complaint was rightly dismissed and the appeal being without any merit should be dismissed.
17. We have considered the respective submissions of the parties and have thoroughly scrutinized the entire record placed on the file.
18. The appellant took admission on the representation of respondents no.1 & 2 that they are conducting the courses on behalf of the IIHT and Rs.4500/- were charged vide receipt Ex.C-1 dated 03.06.2005 from the appellant and vide receipt Ex.C-4 dated 11.08.2005 Rs.3500/- were charged by the respondents and registration no.7588 was allotted. In receipts Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-4, it was nowhere mentioned that the said IIHT is affiliated to Noida or JASanz, having head office in Melbourne, Australia, or Canada. The identity card was issued to the appellant copy of which Ex.C-3 and it was valid upto November, 2005. Ex.C-5 is the advertisement given by the original IIHT and as per this advertisement, Amritsar was not, at all, a recognized centre for conducting any courses on behalf of IIHT and only Chandigarh, Mohali, Jalandhar, Ludhiana and Patiala were the centres. On seeing this advertisement, the appellant came to know that the courses conducted by respondents no.1 & 2 are not, at all, affiliated or recognized by the IIHT and she was left with no alternative except to leave the course in between and join the other course. Ex.C-10 is the advertisement given by respondents no.1 & 2, mentioning "IIHT, Regional Office & Centre, Lawrence Road Chowk, near First Appeal No.251 of 2008 7 Novelty Sweets, Amritsar" and 100% placement was assured and this advertisement allured the appellant to join the course. The licence granted by IIHT, Noida to respondent no.2 was valid upto 14.06.2005, whereas the courses were continued even after that. The respondents have placed on record the admission form Ex.R-2 and nowhere, it is mentioned that their Regional Office and Centre, Punjab Zone is affiliated to Noida. Rules and regulations and the Student Courseware forms also show that only the word 'IIHT' mentioned and in the progress report also, the affiliation regarding Noida is not mentioned. These documents are from Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-12. Ex.R- 13 is the licence produced by the respondents which was issued by IIHT, Noida and was valid upto 14.06.2005 and Ex.R-14 is the agreement. The respondents have not placed on record any document to show that the licence Ex.R-13 was extended further.
19. Respondents no.1 & 2, by misrepresenting that they are attached with IIHT, allured the students to take course in their institute, but the same was not affiliated or recognized with original IIHT and even if some IIHT of Noida had any affiliation with respondents no.1 & 2, then the same also allowed to respondent no.2 to conduct the courses upto 14.06.2005 and not thereafter, whereas respondents no.1 & 2 continued. The appellant was misled to attend the courses of IIHT, but the IIHT as per the advertisement Ex.C-5 had no centre at Amritsar and respondents no.1 & 2 on their receipts and other documents also mentioned only 'IIHT' and on coming to know the real facts, the appellant had no alternative, except to drop out from the course and to take up another MCA course. The District Forum on the basis of the fact that the appellant did not complete the course and joined another course, dismissed the complaint, but overlooked and ignored all the above facts and evidence placed on record by the appellant. The order passed by the District Forum is against the facts and evidence on file and, as such, the same is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
First Appeal No.251 of 2008 8
20. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 11.01.2008 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is allowed and respondents no.1 & 2 are directed to refund Rs.8,000/- (Rs.4500+3500/-) charged by them from the appellant vide receipts Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-4 and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) for mental tension and harassment and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as litigation expenses. The entire amount shall be paid by respondents no.1 & 2 jointly and severally within one month from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which the entire amount shall earn interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Complaint qua respondents no.3 and 4 is dismissed.
21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 09.01.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
22. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member January 16, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)