State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ibm Ltd. Through Its Managing Director ... vs Shri Munish Kumar Sharma on 25 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.663 of 2004 Date of institution : 10.06.2004 Date of decision : 25.05.2010 IBM Ltd. through its Managing Director at IBM India Ltd., Golden Towers, Airport Road, Banglore- 560017, Karnatka (Tel.91-90-5267117). ..Appellants Versus 1. Shri Munish Kumar Sharma, resident of F-37, Central Revenue Colony, Lawrence Road, Amritsar. Respondent 2. Asset International through Managing Director / General Manager at Aptech Ltd., Elite House, 54-A, Sir M.Vasanji Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400093. 3. Aptech Ltd. through its Managing Director at IT-I&IT, 2 Ground Floor, SDF VII Seepz, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 096, India (Tel91-22-56974444). 4. Mr.H.S.Sandhu r/o EH-169, Civil Lines, Jalandhar, previously Director of Amritsar Branch Amritsar. ...Proforma respondents First Appeal against the order dated 26.3.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar. Before:- Honble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.Varun Gupta, Advocate.
For respondent No.1 : Sh.Saurav Khurana, Advocate.
For respondents No.2-4 : Deleted vide order dt.27.9.2004.
MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA, MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 26.3.2004 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short District Forum), wherein the complaint of respondent No.1 was allowed and the appellants and respondents No.2, 3 and 4 were directed to refund the amount of Rs.32,050/- to respondent No.1 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till date of refund and to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.2 a corporate professional training division of respondent No.3 in collaboration with the appellants launched a course titled as e com @ Asset ver 2. The said course was advertised by means of hoardings through newspapers and websites. Grooming, horning, and harnessing of career of students was promised in these advertisements. Respondent no.1 got allured by these advertisements and visited the Amritsar Centre of respondent No.2 (Asset International) where he met its Director / Manager Sh.H.S.Sandhu, respondent No.4 who in turn assured to fulfil all the promises as advertised. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 paid the entire fee amount of Rs.32,050/- for the course in instalments and receipts for the same were placed on record.
3. It was further pleaded that centre was not equipped to conduct the said course as a result of which the training as promised could not be imparted and the course as promised could not be completed. Even the certificate issued to respondent No.1 was fake.
4. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellants, respondent No.2, 3 & 4, respondent No.1 filed a complaint in the learned District Forum, Amritsar seeking the refund of amount of Rs. 32,050/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Costs and compensation were also prayed.
5. Respondents No.2 & 3 filed joint reply pleading that they had given their franchise to respondent No.4 and that respondent No.1 had directly dealt with respondent No.4 and hence they were not responsible for any deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.4.
6. Respondent No.4 filed a separate reply. The receipt of money from respondent No.1 was admitted. It was stated that all the assured services were provided to respondent No.1. It was further pleaded that genuine certificate as received from other parties was handed over to respondent No.1.
7. The appellants filed separate reply. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 was not student of respondents No.2 & 3. It was further pleaded that appellants had given franchise to respondents No.2 & 3 namely Asset International and Aptech Ltd. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1 had paid fees directly to respondent No.4 and accordingly the appellants were not liable for any deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.4.
8. Parties tendered the evidence.
9. After considering the pleadings of the parties and affidavits / documents produced by them on the file, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint in the terms stated above.
10. Hence the appeal.
11. Learned counsel for appellants got deleted the name of respondents No.2 to 4 from the array of respondents on 27.9.2004.
12. The submission of learned counsel for appellants was that appeal be accepted and impugned order dated 26.3.2004 be set aside.
13. The submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1 was that there was no merit in the appeal and same be dismissed.
14. Admittedly respondent No.1 was enrolled as student of e com @ Asset ver 2 with respondent No.4. He paid the amount of Rs.32,050/- in instalments to respondent No.4 as fee for the said course. It is also admitted that the appellants gave their franchise to respondents No.2 & 3, who in turn gave their franchise to respondent No.4.
15. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that respondent No.1 got allured by the false assurances and misleading advertisements pertaining to the course e com @ Asset ver 2 and with a view to enhance his career prospects, he enrolled himself for the said course at Amritsar after paying a total fee of Rs.32,050/- in instalments. The fee receipts are proved as Ex.C2 to Ex.C9.
16. It was further submitted that the centre at Amritsar was ill-equipped to conduct the said course. There was shortage of computers, lack of infrastructure and faculty members. As a result of this, the training as promised could not be imparted and promised course could not be completed. In support of this contention, respondent No.1 placed reliance on the affidavit (Ex.C17) of Rahul Mehra, former Faculty of Asset International and affidavit (Ex.C18) of Ashish Gupta, student of Asset International.
17. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 also submitted that the performance statement and certificate given to respondent no.1 was fake and spurious, due to which respondent No.1 was deprived of getting the job for which he was selected. The performance statement and certificate are placed on record as Ex.C10 and Ex.C11.
The fact relating to their fakeness is proved from letter (Ex.C13) of Sh.Amit Sharma, Regional Manager-North, Asset International, given in reply to the legal notice dated 22.11.2002 (Ex.C14).
18. It was further alleged that the whole professional career of respondent No.1 had been marred due to the mal functioning and deficient services provided by the appellants and by respondents No.2,3 & 4.
19. The submission of learned counsel for appellants was that the appellants were engaged in the business of providing information technology services in India and had been licenced by IBM World Trade Corporation, U.S.A. to appoint authorised training promoters to set up centres offering computer education and training programs on IBM Platform Production (Course Offerings) using IBM course material and to grant licences to such authorised training providers to use the course material for conducting Course Offerings.
20. The appellants further submitted that there was no privity of contract between the appellants and respondent No.1. In fact the appellants had entered into an agreement dated 29.1.1999 with respondent No.2 acting through its sole proprietor respondent No.3, in pursuant to which respondents No.2 & 3 had set up and were operating centres offerings IBM Course Offerings in various centres across the country including Amritsar. The agreement was limited only to the supply of the necessary course material to respondents No.2 & 3 in order to enable them to provide the course offering at the said centre as well as to provide certificates to the students, who had duly completed the course.
21. The learned counsel for the appellants further alleged that respondent No.1 was not a consumer qua the appellants. He had directly dealt with respondent No.4 who was conferred with the licence of conducting the said course by respondents No.2 & 3. Moreover, no cause of action was brought out against the appellants by respondent No.1 and hence the appellants could not be held liable for any losses suffered by respondent No.1 on account of deficient services rendered by respondent No.4.
22. Now the main point of consideration before us is whether the appellants are liable for the deficiency in service rendered by respondent No.4.
23. The appellants have admitted that they gave their franchise to respondents No.2 & 3 who have further admitted that they gave their franchise to respondent No.4. It is also undisputed that the appellants and respondents No.2 & 3 are companies of high repute and standing.
Believing in their credibility and standing, respondent No.1 paid money to respondent No.4. Needless to say respondent No.4 was conferred with the licence to conduct the said course at Amritsar by respondents No.2 & 3, who were further authorised to set up centres offering such course across all parts of the country including Amritar.
24. Since respondent No.4 has failed to render the promised services to respondent No.1, we hold that along with respondents No.2, 3 and 4, the appellants are also jointly and severally liable to respondent No.1. Hence the appellants and respondents No.2 & 3 cannot absolve themselves from compensating respondent No.1 for the deficient services rendered by respondent No.4.
25. Moreover, if respondent No.4 was only liable or that the appellants and respondent No.2 & 3 were not liable, the appellants would not have got deleted the names of respondents No.2,3,4 from court by making statement on 27.9.2004. It means that interest of the appellants are in common with respondents No.2,3 & 4.
26. In the ultimate analysis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.2000/- to be paid to respondent No.1 within one month from the receipt of this order.
27. The appellants have already deposited a sum of Rs.6502/- at the time of filing of appeal on 10.6.2004 and another amount of Rs.19,505 on 28.7.2004. This amount along with interest, if any, be sent to the respondent by way of bank draft / crossed cheque immediately. Remaining amount be paid by the appellants to respondent No.1 immediately.
28. The arguments in this case were heard on 12.5.2010 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
29. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Mrs.Amarpeet Sharma) Member May 25, 2010.
Davinder