State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Iiht Network Ltd (Presently Known As ... vs 1. Amit Arora Son Of Shri Harbans Lal ... on 12 February, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.501 and 591 of 2005 Date of Institution: 21.03.2005 & 29.03.2005 Date of Decision: 12.01.2012 Appeal No.501 of 2005 IIHT Network Ltd (Presently known as INSET Electronics Ltd.) B-253, Sector 26, NOIDA-201301. Appellant (OP-2) Versus 1. Amit Arora son of Shri Harbans Lal Arora R/o Kirti Nagar, near Petrol Pump, Begu Road, Sirsa. Respondent (Complainant) 2. Sumer Singh son of Shri Amir Singh, Centre Director-IIHT (Presently known as INSET) Sirsa, Resident of House No.114, Vijay Nagar, Bhiwani-127021. Respondent (OP-1) Appeal No.591 of 2005 Sumer Singh son of Shri Amir Singh, Centre Director-IIHT (Presently known as INSET) Sirsa, Resident of House No.114, Vijay Nagar, Bhiwani-127021 Appellant (OP-1) Versus 1. Amit Arora son of Shri Harbans Lal Arora R/o Kirti Nagar, near Petrol Pump, Begu Road, Sirsa. Respondent (Complainant) 2. IIHT Network Ltd (Presently known as INSET Electronics Ltd.) B-253, Sector 26, NOIDA-201301. Respondent (OP-2) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Kapil Bhatia, Advocate for IIHT Network Ltd. Sh. Mahesh Sangwan,Advocate for respondent No.1 (complainant) None for Sumer Singh. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
These two appeals have arisen out of the order dated 11.02.2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sirsa in complaint No.358/2003 whereby the opposite parties have been held deficient in service for not providing proper infrastructure including the teaching staff to the complainant and other students in the course of Computer Hardware and Network and granted following relief:-
we direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.14350/- deposited by the complainant with respondent No.1 as fees and security. The complainant also suffered physical and mental harassment and the respondents also spoiled valuable one year of study of the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to compensation on these counts to the tune of Rs.5000/- with costs of proceedings to the tune of Rs.2000/-. We further direct the respondents to make the payment of the aforesaid amounts within a period of one month failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the amount of Rs.14350/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization with amount of compensation as well as costs of proceedings. It is pertinent to mention here that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the amounts of fee as well as compensation and costs of proceeding awarded by us. We order accordingly.
The grievance of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that he alongwith other students had taken admission in Computer Hardware and Network Course for one and half year which was being organized by the opposite party No.1 (Sumer Arora) at Sirsa in House No.16 R.S.D. Colony, Sirsa. The opposite parties charged the fee of Rs.32,000/- from the complainant. According to the complainant the opposite parties had given assurance of 100% job after one and half year diploma which was of three semesters i.e. six months of each semester. However, the first semester was completed in ten months. Complainant further stated that the opposite parties failed to provide good education because they had no facility or infrastructure computer facility, qualified teaching staff in their institution. After completing first semester, the opposite parties did not issue the Detailed Marks Card. The opposite parties did not start the study of second semester and the opposite party No.1 stopped to give computer training to the students including the complainant without the necessary infrastructure and qualified teacher, the opposite party No.1 was not in a position to start the second semester. The opposite party No.1 removed the teachers working at the computer centre without any cogent reason. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum seeking refund of the deposited free worth Rs.32,000/- and Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment besides Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. It was stated that no assurance was given to the complaint for providing job. The complainant and some other students had taken admission in the course at a belated stage and for that reason they were told that their admission in the institute was on their risk. It was further stated that the complainant had deposited the part payment of the semester fee. The complainant had started attending the classes in the second semester but on demanding fee, he stopped to attend the classes. All the facilities including the qualified teachers were provided by the opposite party No.1. Denying any kind of deficiency in service on their part, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. We have also perused the written submission submitted on behalf of INSET.
It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant alongwith some other students had taken admission for computer course in the institute of the opposite party No.1. The case of the complainant has been fully established on the record that the opposite parties failed to provide necessary infrastructure and teaching staff to the students for the above said course. The opposite parties have failed to produce any reliable evidence in this regard. Had the opposite parties provided proper education/training to the complainant and other students, then the question of filing complaint does not arise. A student always remain worry about his future and therefore the question of non-payment of the course fee by the complainant does not arise. From the act and conduct of the opposite parties, it is a well proved case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Hence, both these appeals are dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.10,675/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal No.501/2005 and Rs.5345/- deposited in appeal No.591/2005 be refunded to the respective appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
The original judgment/order be attached with appeal No.501/2005 and certified copy be attached with appeal No.591/2005.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 12.01.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member