State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.P. Chawla Care Of Netcell vs Shri Amit Jain on 16 May, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.3238 of 2004 Date of Institution: 14.12.2004 Date of Decision: 16.05.2011 S.P. Chawla care of NETCELL, 25/75, Thapar Colony, Adjoining Konia Photlab, Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar (Haryana). Appellant (OP-1) Versus 1. Shri Amit Jain son of Shri Pawan Kumar Jain, Resident of House No.933-A, Ashoka Colony, Yamuna Nagar. 2. Shri Sachin Jain son of Shri Rohtash Kumar Jain, Resident of House No.26, Kamla Colony, Yamuna Nagar. 3. Shri Surinder Singh s/o Sardar Gulab Singh R/o H.No.1088, Mahavir Colony, Jagadhri. 4. Shri Gopal son of Shri Manwer Singh, Resident of House No.1179, Durga Colony, Jagadhri. Respondents (Complainants) 5. Shri Rohit Bharti, Faculty Netcal Care of English World, Santpura Road, Yamuna Nagar. 6. Miss Bhawna, Counselor, Netcell Centre, 25/76, Thapar Colony, adjoining, Konica Photolab, Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar. Respondents (Ops No.2 & 3) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Munish Bansal, Advocate for appellant. None for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Case called several times since morning but none put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-complainant though the case is fixed for arguments. It is already 12:40 P.M. This appeal relates to the year 2004. Heavy pendency of appeals/complaints as well as non-cooperative attitude of the parties/their counsel is the reason for heavy cause list. Under these circumstances we do not think it appropriate to adjourn this appeal indefinitely and therefore we proceed to decide the same after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party and going through the case file.
Undisputed facts of the present case are that the complainants (respondents No.1 to 4 herein) got enrolled them with the opposite party No.1 ( appellant herein) for taking training towards Domestic Call Centre Training Programme and paid Rs.10,000/- each to the opposite party No.1. The complainants No.1 and 2 completed their training on 12.08.2002, a written examination was conducted and certificate to this effect was issued to both the complainants. The grievance of the complainants is that at the time of admission for taking training, the opposite parties had assured them to give job but they (opposite parties) lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainants have further alleged that as per pamphlets and the advertisements published in various newspapers, the opposite parties had to provide job to the complainants but they failed to do so. Thus, alleging it as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainants invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum seeking direction to the opposite parties to provide jobs to the complainants; to pay Rs.50,000/- each as compensation for mental agony, harassment and economic loss due to loss of earning and loss of career and future of the complainants and further to pay Rs.2200/- each as litigation expenses.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing the written statement. In the preliminary objections, they took the plea that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. It was further stated that the complainants were given the best call centre training at their institute. They denied that any assurance was given to the complainants for providing jobs to them and rather the complainants were only offered assistance in getting job after training and this assurance was fulfilled by the opposite parties. It was admitted that the complainants No.1,2 and 4 had paid Rs.10,000/- each but the complainant No.3 had paid Rs.9,000/- only. The complainants No.1 and 2 were given additional free training and after that they were selected in Crest India Limited and they worked their for a new days and then being not serious to their job, their services were terminated by the Company as they failed to achieve the targets. When the complainants No.1 and 2 were selected in Crest India Limited, the complainants No.3 and 4 took admission in the institute of the opposite parties after seeing the photoes in the advertisements. The complainant No.3 had paid Rs.9,000/- and complainant No.4 had paid Rs.10,000/-. The complainants No.3 and 4 were also provided the assistance in getting job and they got the one in Excel Callnet but they refused to sign the bond for six months and thus did not join their duty. Thus, the opposite parties pleaded that the complainants were provided full assistance in getting job but as the complainants No.1 and 2 did not work to the satisfaction of the Company, their services were terminated and the complainants No.3 and 4 did not join the job though was offered to them by Excel Callnet. According to the opposite parties a number of candidates who were imparted training by their institute, have been selected at different places in different Companies. Thus, denying any kind of deficiency in service, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties to provide service to the complainants or to refund the amount already charges from them i.e. Rs.10,000/- each from complainants No.1,2 and 4 and Rs.9,000/- from the complainant No.3, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of realization. Further compensation of Rs.40,000/- was awarded to each of the complainants on account of mental agony, harassment and unfair trade practice.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite party No.1 has come up in appeal.
Heard.
Shri Munish Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-opposite party No.1 has argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-opposite parties while imparting training to the complainants. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), [hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986), which is reproduced as under:-
2(1)(g) deficiency 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 undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;
It has further been argued on behalf of the appellant-opposite party No.1 that the opposite parties cannot be blamed with any kind of unfair trade practice in view of Section 2(1( (r) (ii) of the Act, 1986, which is reproduced as under:-
2(1)(r) unfair trade practice means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely-
(ii) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade;
(iv) represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have Shri Bansal has further argued that no assurance was ever given to the complainants that they would be provided job after completing training and rather it was given in the advertisement published in the newspapers that full assistance would be provided to the students for getting jobs after completing the training, which in the instant case the opposite parties had fulfilled as the complainants No.1 and 2 were selected in Crest India Limited, however, later on their services were terminated by the Company due to their inefficient work.
Similarly, the complainants No.3 and 4 were offered job Excel Callnet but they refused to sign the bond for six months and they did not not join the job of their own. Thus, the opposite parties have provided full assistance to the complainants in getting jobs after completing their training from the institute of the opposite parties.
We find force in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant-opposite party No.1. In view of the provisions prescribed in Section 2(1)(g) and 2(1) (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainants we do not find any kind of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. It is not the case of the complainants that they were not imparted training by the opposite parties, rather it has come on record that after completing the training, the complainants were issued Certificates by the Institute where they were imparted training. The clippings of the advertisements given in the newspapers Annexure C-2, Annexure C-3, Annexure C-4 and Annexure C-5 reflect that assurance was given by the opposite parties for Job Assistance only after training and this assurance was fulfilled by the opposite parties when the complainants No.1 and 2 were selected in Crest India Limited and they worked there for a few days but their services were terminated due to their inefficiency in job work as they failed to achieve the targets. It has also come on record that the complainants No.3 and 4 were selected in Excel Callnet but they did not sign the bond for six months and thus did not join the job. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the true facts of the case supported with cogent and convincing evidence and as such the impugned order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 16.05.2011 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member