National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Frankfinn Institute Of Air Hostess ... vs Ashwini G. on 28 May, 2009
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 917 OF
2009
(Against the order
dated 30.01.2009
in Appeal/ Complaint No.2779/2008
of
the State Commission,
KARNATAKA )
FRANKFINN INSTITUTE OF AIR HOSTESS TRAINING
NO.119/A/36, 2ND
FLOOR,
GARLA GARNET,
9TH MAIN ROAD,
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560011
........ Petitioner
Vs.
ASHWINI G.
D/O G.V.R. PRASAD
NO.34, SIDDEGOWDA STREET,
SUSHEELA ROAD CROSS,
DODDAMAVALLI,
BANGALORE 560004
........ Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
For the Petitioner
: Mr. Ajit Nair, Advocate
Pronounced on :_28.05.2009
ORDER
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent/ complainant had enrolled herself with the Air Hostess Training Institute of the petitioner for a one year Diploma Course in Aviation, Hospitality and Travel Management for which she paid fees of Rs.92,000/-. One of the components of the training course as per the prospectus envisaged 30 hours of practical training inside an Aircraft Airbus 300 at New Delhi for the in-flight training. For some reason, the institute could not impart this module of the training course within the period of one year as promised.
The respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the fee paid by her with compensation for the mental agony and harassment.
The complaint was contested by the petitioner/opposite party who denied that there was any deficiency on their part. In the grounds advanced, the maintainability of the complaint was questioned and further pleaded that during the subsequent year, the complainant was offered the in-flight practical training at New Delhi and advised to join the same with other students but the complainant never responded to their instructions. It was submitted before the District Forum that the petitioner/opposite party was now ready and willing to send the complainant for the Airbus training programme in New Delhi at their own cost. The District Forum on appreciation of the evidence before it and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, arrived at the finding that whatever training was imparted during the course of one year has gone waste since the complainant was not provided the opportunity for the in-flight training and she was not likely to get a job in the Airlines. Holding the petitioner deficient in service and that the complainant was put to mental agony and harassment, the District Forum directed the petitioner/opposite party to refund Rs.92,000/- within 30 days from the date of the order.
Aggrieved thereupon the petitioner/opposite party filed an appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short State Commission) which was dismissed by the State Commission. It is in this background that the petitioner/opposite party has filed this revision petition to challenge the order passed by the fora below.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while admitting that the module regarding Airbus training which was to be imparted at Delhi could not be arranged in time because of a dispute with the owner of the fuselage Airbus A-300 wherein the training had to be conducted has, however, strenuously argued that this was only a minor component of the Diploma Course which also included Hospitality and Travel Management. All the same, soon after the petitioner was able to obtain the injunction order against the owner of the Airbus A-300, the Aircraft Training at New Delhi was resumed and the complainant was asked to undertake the same alongwith other students. He has drawn our attention to the long list of various other components ranging from Personal Grooming, Fitness and Hygiene, Hair and Skin Care, First Aid Training, Public Relations, Character Enhancement & Moral Building, Stress and Time Management, Food & Beverages etc. which formed the major part of the training programme which the complainant has undergone and tried to persuade us to believe that there was no deficiency on the part of the petitioner. It has further been contended that the complainant was provided job assistance for a period of 18 months after the completion of the course. Learned counsel finally contended that the petitioner is running a number of training institutes in and outside the country and enjoys a reputation of maintaining training of international standards and the students trained by it have been offered jobs by some of the most reputed Airlines in the world. He, therefore, contends that the District Forum has erroneously held that the petitioner is liable for the so-called deficiency which has been wrongly confirmed by the State Commission which needs to be set aside.
We have patiently heard the vibrant submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed that the module of 30 hrs. of training inside an Airbus A-300 was not imparted during the course of the period of one year for which the Diploma Course in Aviation, Hospitality and Travel Management was run.
Fee has been taken by the petitioner for the entire course as a whole and not for each one of these components separately. Besides, if one component of the training is not imparted, the whole course remains incomplete as in the absence thereof, no certificate could be awarded. Aviation, being the most important module of the course as is obvious from the name of the petitioner i.e. Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training, it would have certainly resulted in a great set back to the complainant who aspired to be an Air Hostess. Subsequent offer to the complainant to undergo the training would not mitigate the deficiency inasmuch as the complainant lost valuable opportunities and also time which was very vital as Airlines preferred to recruit girls of young age for the job of in-flight cabin crew.
The District Forum ordered only a refund of the fees paid by the complainant which has been affirmed by the State Commission. This is the least that is deserved by the complainant since the petitioner themselves have saved the cost of Aircraft training.
We also notice from the record that the petitioner/opposite party without imparting the in-flight training module issued a certificate of completion of the course which to say the list, was an unethical conduct. But for the fact that the respondent/complainant has not filed any revision petition seeking compensation for the shock, trauma and mental agony and loss of opportunity, we would have awarded some compensation. However, under the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit whatsoever in the revision petition and fully endorse the concurrent findings of the fora below.
The revision petition, accordingly is dismissed at this stage of admission with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Sd/ (B.N.P. SINGH) (PRESIDING MEMBER) Sd/ (S.K. NAIK) MEMBER St/10