State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Xansa (India) Ltd. vs Nakul Kalla on 15 February, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 15.02.2008 Appeal No. A-42/02 (Arising out of Order dated 10.07.2001 passed by the District Consumer Forum(III), 150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Case No. 2009/99) Xansa ( India) Ltd. Appellant (Formerly known as IIS Through Infotech Ltd.), Mr. Rai Singh, Having its Office at Advocate D-1/3, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. Versus 1. Mr. Nakul Kalla Respondent No.1 42 A, LIG, DA Flats, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. 2. M/s. S.R. Enterprises Respondent No.2 Rajouri Garden Centre, A-36, 1st Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)
1. Vide impugned order dated 10.07.01 passed by the District forum, the appellant has been directed to refund an amount of Rs. 22,500/- with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 18.05.99 i.e. the date of legal notice and Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- towards cost and litigation charges. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The relevant facts leading to the impugned order, in brief, are that appellant advertised for a course in specialized Web and Multimedia training titled Web Pro for a period of six months full time followed by one year work experience through industry internship. The respondent was informed by appellant that the said web pro course is divided into 5 learning blocks, as detailed in brochure, to be taught, both theory and practice, by expert faculty. The respondent paid Rs. 50/- on account of prospectus on 12.11.98 and deposited Rs. 500/- for regn.
On 13.11.98 and on 16.11.98 Rs. 500/- was deposited on account of library besides the sum of Rs. 11,000/- being first instalment dated 16.11.98 for the course. On 26.12.98 2nd instalment of Rs. 11,000/- was also deposited with appellant-2. There was no proper arrangement for imparting training and conducting the course for want of well qualified and skilled teachers and the respondent along with other class mates including Ms. Jyoti Kajoria called upon the Director of Centre of respondent-2 and lodged a complaint. Director of appellant-2 informed that the faculty was undergoing orientation programme with appellant-1 and assured that course would be completed within stipulated time. Whereas appellant failed to impart training and the respondent was made to pay 2nd instalment towards fee of Rs. 11,000/- on 26.12.98 under threat of striking of his name. The respondent made 2 complaint in writing to appellant-1 and appellant-2. Instead of making arrangement for imparting training and providing education and preparing the students for the course, the respondent was asked to pay the balance fee. The respondent was forced to withdraw because of failure of appellant to render service by imparting training. The respondent prayed for a direction to refund a sum of Rs. 20,000/-
charged as course fee and Rs. 500/- as library charges and caution deposit along with interest @ 24% p.a. and for a direction to pay compensation of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- towards cost of litigation
3. As against this, the version of the appellant was that it has rendered no service to the respondent directly. The respondent joined appellant-2 which is a franchise of appellant-1 for getting trained in computer software. The respondent alleged dissatisfaction and annoyance with the courses which is a subjective issue and the Honble Court cannot adjudicate on the subjective feeling of any individual. Further that the respondent has not adduced any evidence to show deficiency in service and/or in the method of imparting training and conducting courses on the part of appellants. The respondent has already utilized service of appellant-2 and having dropped out of the course on his own account cannot be compensated. On merit there is no specific denial that the respondent joined the course of appellant as per their advertisement. However, in most cases appellant-1 does not directly impart training on computer courses. It is done through their franchises which are selected with meticulous care and after being satisfied with their ability to conduct the software courses. The respondent was not allured to join the course, rather after fully satisfying himself about the course he joined the institute. As the respondent expressed his inability to pay the fees in one instalment and requested for making the payment of fees in more than one instalment, accordingly, it is admitted that first instalment of Rs. 11,000/- was paid by the respondent on 16.11.98 and 2nd instalment was paid on 26.12.98. The respondent attended the courses and seminars regularly for a period of three months and participated in all programmes and even attended the examinations. The respondent successfully qualified in the examinations, hence, if the faculties and facilities were not available as alleged by the respondent or otherwise then the respondent would not have been working and appearing in the examinations.
The respondent and one Ms. Jyoti Kajaria dropped out in the middle of course out of 83 students, whereas other students are fully satisfied. Respondent misbehaved with appellant-2 and also failed to pay the last instalment.
The alleged complaint of the respondent to appellant were duly replied.
4. On the aforesaid conspectus of rival claims and contentions, the District Forum on the premise of appellant having control of respondent-2 even in the matter of collection of fees, engagement of faculty members has held both the appellant and respondent-2 guilty for deficiency in service but without specifying the liability whether joint or several has directed them to pay the aforesaid amounts.
5. There is no dispute that the respondent-1 has imparted some service by way of training which was not upto his satisfaction and it was because of that he asked for refund of the fees of Rs. 35,000/-. It is only in those cases where no service or coaching has been provided by the service provider or has been received by the consumer that consumer may be entitled for refund of entire fees paid by the appellant.
6. In such like cases we have taken the view that no Institute or education centre can or should take the lumpsum fees of whole duration of the course or coaching say of one year or two year or three years as it is an unfair trade practice because by taking lumpsum fees they not only bind the student to have coaching or training in their Institutes but also render them in a position not to receive back the fees if the quality and standard of coaching is not upto the standard or satisfaction of the student.
Wherever any service provider like the one before us, evolves a mechanism of providing course or degrees through the franchisee, both the franchisee as well as the service provider have to be held guilty jointly and severally for the deficiency in service if there is any shortcoming, imperfection, inadequacy in the manner of performance or in the standard of coaching or teaching.
7. However, considering the fact that the respondent-1 had taken some training or coaching for few months, the order of the refund of the entire fees that too with interest, was not justified.
Interest is awarded in those cases where there are equitable grounds say on deposits through FDR or payment of consideration amount of sale and purchase of house or flat or for delayed delivery of possession and not in such like cases where the question involved for determination is whether the nature of quality of training was upto the satisfaction of a candidate or not.
These are not such transactions where the candidate or student should be awarded interest over and above the refund of fees. At the most such a student can be compensated adequately or reasonably for the career loss or mental agony or harassment.
8. Taking overall view of the matter, we partly allow the appeal by directing the refund of Rs. 15,000/- as the respondent-1 had taken some training or coaching from the appellant besides Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2500/- as cost of litigation.
9. The appeal is decided in the aforesaid extent.
10. The payment shall be made within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
11. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
13. Announced on 15th day of February, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member ysc