State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Exalt Marine Academy, Delhi vs Mohd. Arif on 20 September, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 83 / 2012
Exalt Marine Academy
Shri Deepak Kumar (Director)
S/o Shri Guneshwar Prasad
R/o H.No. R-6, Uttam Nagar,
Delhi
......Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Arif
S/o Mohd. Nazim
R/o Dhakrani, Vikas Nagar
District Dehradun
......Respondent
Ms. Rekha Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Respondent in Person
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 20/09/2012
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.03.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in Consumer Complaint No. 214/2011. Vide its order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite parties, jointly or severally, to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- as compensation, Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which an interest @ 9% per annum shall also be payable on the said amount from the date of filing the consumer complaint till the date of payment.
2. The consumer complaint decided by the District Forum, Dehradun pertains to deficiency in service made and unfair trade practice adopted by an institution named Exalt Marine Academy which claims itself to be a sister concern of Exalt Marine Services. It also claims that Exalt Marine Services is 2 under empanelment for supply of skilled manpower to shipping companies, including such giants as The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Accordingly, the Exalt Marine Academy, having its Corporate Office in New Delhi and Regional Centers in New Delhi, Jaipur, Patna, Bhopal, Dehradun and Ranchi offers Deck Cadet Course and G.P. Rating Course. For inviting applications for admission to these courses, wide publicity is made through newspapers, highlighting therein the bright future prospects for those who successfully complete these courses. Attracted with one of such advertisement published by the Regional Center at Dehradun of Exalt Marine Academy, one Mohd. Arif - the complainant took admission in Deck Cadet Course and paid a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- as fee and other expenses for a course of 6 months' duration. However, he found that the institute had completed the course in three months and twenty four days and issued certain certificates, but the certificate for the Deck Cadet Course was not issued, due to which the complainant could not get a job. Further, the institute had promised 100% assistance in getting a job, but it never extended any help. For these reasons, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun, which after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint in the above manner. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party No. 2 - Exalt Marine Academy, New Delhi (the Corporate Office) has filed this appeal through its Director Shri Deepak Kumar.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent - complainant in person and perused the material placed on record.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the total duration of the said course was six months, out of which the respondent was imparted 4 months training for Deck Cadet and related fields and in rest of the period, approximately two months, the respondent and other fellow cadets were made to stay in the institute's hostel, so that placement assistance could be given to them while they wait for the CDC, which was to be issued by the Republic of Liberia from the office of Deputy Commissioner of Maritime Affairs, R.L. Vienna, VIRGINIA, U.S.A. This certificate is internationally recognized and the respondent was eligible to apply for the job 3 anywhere in the world. Thus, the appellant has not made any deficiency in service on the ground that the training programme was reduced to four months and Deck Cadet's certificate was not issued. On the issue of placement, the learned counsel argued that the appellant had never given 100% job assurance. In the advertisements and in the prospectus, the appellant had promised that 100% job assistance shall be given.
5. The respondent - complainant reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the impugned order.
6. We considered the submissions made by the parties. We carefully perused the prospectus (Paper No. 54) and found that the duration of the Deck Cadets Course is 6 months. The appellant has nowhere mentioned in the prospectus that the actual training programme shall be conducted for 4 months and rest of the period shall be utilized in providing assistance in searching a job by the cadets. As a matter of fact, the course started on 01-01-2011 and ended on 24-04-2011 and, thus, the course was completed in a duration of three months and 24 days. The fee was charged for a course of 6 months' duration. Such a practice shall certainly be termed as an unfair trade practice because the respondent, who intended to avail the services offered by the appellant on the basis of the advertisement and prospectus, was under the impression that he was going to receive a training for six months and he paid a huge amount against the course fee and other expenses for this period. The certificates, which were issued by the International Maritime Institute, 13, Knowledge Park-1, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida pertain to the following courses:-
Course's Name Duration
i. Personal Survival Techniques 3 days
ii. Fire Prevention and Fire Fighting 3 days
iii. Personal Safety and Social Responsibilities 3 days
iv. Elementary First Aid 2 days
The total duration of above mentioned four courses is only 11 days.
47. In the certificate issued by the Republic of Liberia, only these four courses have been mentioned and there is no mention of Deck Cadet's Course. According to the respondent, the certificate pertains to STCW or Standards Training Certificate Watchkeeping. We find force in the contention of the respondent because in the Medical Examination Report / Certificate issued by the Republic of Liberia, the respondent has been certified medically fit for sea services, but this certificate reveals that the certifying authority was also required to give specific report in respect of the following:-
(a) Examination for duty as :
- Master
- Mate
- Engineer
- Radio Officer
- Rating
(b) (He) (She) is found to be (fit) (not fit) as a (Master, Mate, Engineer, Radio Officer or Rating).
8. Against these two columns, there is no specific report and the columns have been left blank. Instead, the certifying authority has put a rubber seal in respect of the fitness that the candidate is medically fit for sea services. All these facts indicate that the respondent was kept in dark in respect of the course's actual contents. By making a wide publicity of a lucrative career as a Deck Cadet, a huge amount towards fee and other expenses was charged from him by the appellant. The appellant, in its written statement and also in pleadings, failed to convince us that the certificate issued by the Republic of Liberia, as mentioned above, is Panama CDC. The appellant also failed to adduce any evidence that during a period of 2 months after the completion of the course on 24.04.2011, it had arranged in-campus and off-campus interviews for the respondent and had extended 100% job assistance to the respondent. The District Forum has discussed all the facts of the case and has passed a well reasoned order. We are in complete consonance with the District Forum's views and, therefore, this appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
59. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed and the order dated 20.03.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)